McCrea v. Beverly Gas & Elec. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1914 |
| Citation | 104 N.E. 365,216 Mass. 495 |
| Parties | McCREA v. BEVERLY GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Gaston, Snow & Saltonstall, of Boston (Lawrence A. Ford, Geo. M. G. Nichols, and Jos. A. Locke, all of Boston, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Sweeney & Cox, of Lawrence, for defendant.
The following are the facts which the jury were warranted in finding in this case, although contrary in many important particulars to the evidence introduced by the defendant:
The plaintiff was employed by the city of Beverly in moth work. On the day of the accident here in question he was climbing an elm tree on Pond street in Beverly, with a coil of rope hanging from his right side, the end being tied around his waist, as was usual in such work. The ordinary method pursued in moth work is for the employé to climb to the part of the tree from which his work is to be done, and to draw up the tools he wishes to use by sending down the rope brought up by him for the purpose. When the plaintiff had reached a point about 30 feet from the ground, he was stopped by the coil of rope catching on a twig or something else sticking out of the tree. His shoulder was then about on a level with three of the defendant's wires carrying a current of 6,600 volts the nearest of them being 19 inches away. Finding that his coil of rope was caught, he drove his left climbing iron more firmly into the tree and took a firmer hold of the branch which was on his left side. He then looked at the wires and decided that he could 'clear' them if he reached with his right hand and cleared his rope. He started to do so and the next thing that he knew he was regaining consciousness in a doctor's office. What happened was that the plaintiff received a shock from the nearer one of the row of three wires carrying the current of 6,600 volts, and was thrown to the ground. The tips of his third and middle fingers were so burned that those fingers had to be amputated, and there also was a burn on his ankle where the climbing iron was fastened. The high voltage wires here in question carried the only electricity used in the town of Manchester some six miles from the defendant's power station in Beverly. There were three of these wires strung in a row between rows of wires of a lower voltage above and below them.
Wires carrying a current with a voltage of 5,000 volts are exceptionally dangerous and require extraordinary precautions; and the higher the voltage the greater the precautions that are required. In spite of that no extra precautions were taken by the defendant in regard to these Manchester wires, but they were treated in the same way that the wires above and below them were treated. That warranted a finding of negligence.
A person coming in contact with an electric wire cannot get a shock unless the wire is grounded and the person is grounded. The defendant had no separate ground detector for the Manchester wires, and the general detector for the whole system did not show that there was any ground on the day in question. The accident to the plaintiff was such that it could not have been caused in case of a slight ground such as is produced by a swaying branch or twig. A ground such as caused the accident here complained of was of such a character that it would have been recorded if the detector had been in proper condition. This warranted a finding of negligence on the ground that the detector was out of order.
The necessity of men climbing trees to do the required work on moths was known, and it is possible to insulate electric wires. The Manchester wires passed through or by trees at fifty places at least. In spite of that no attempt was made by the defendant to insulate the wires at these points. This warranted a finding of negligence on a third ground. The defendant has assumed in its argument that the plaintiff did not make out a case of...
To continue reading
Request your trial