Moran v. Corliss Steam-Engine Co.

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MATTESON, C. J.
• Citation: Moran v. Corliss Steam-Engine Co., 21 R.I. 386, 43 A. 874, 45 L. R. A. 207 (R.I. 1899)
• Decision Date: 08 July 1899
• Parties: MORAN v. CORLISS STEAM-ENGINE CO.

43 A. 874

21 R.I. 386

MORAN

v. CORLISS STEAM-ENGINE CO.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 8, 1899.

Action by James Moran against the Corliss Steam-Engine Company. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant presented a petition for a new trial. Petition denied.

David S. Baker and Dennis H. Sheahan, for plaintiff.

Henry W. Hayes, for defendant.

MATTESON, C. J. We think that the testimony shows that the crane at which the accident occurred was defectively constructed, either in that there was a metallic connection between the hauling chain and the motor, or at least that the insulation between them was not sufficient to prevent a leakage of electricity from the motor to the hauling chain, and that, though the leakage of electricity from the motor to the lifting chain and hauling chain was probably insufficient to be dangerous with no greater current than that designed to be used to operate the crane, yet it was liable to become dangerous from the presence of a more powerful current. The testimony shows that at the time of the accident, February 6, 1896, at a little after 5 o'clock in the afternoon, the wind was blowing at the rate of 40 miles an hour, with puffs at the rate of 60 miles,— conditions favorable to the intermittent crossing or contact of electric wires. We think the jury would have been warranted in finding that the accident was due to the contact, outside of the defendant's premises, between the wire supplying electricity to the motor of the crane and some more heavily charged wire, whereby, by reason of defective insulation, possibly occasioned by the rubbing together of the wires, a current much exceeding the usual current was transmitted over the wire to the motor of the crane, and thence, by reason of the faulty construction of the crane, to the hauling chain. In so far, therefore, as the petition rests on the ground that the verdict is against the evidence, the question resolves itself into this: Was the defendant reasonably bound to have anticipated the influx to its premises of a current of electricity sufficiently powerful to dangerously charge the metallic portions of its crane, and did it take reasonable precautions for the protection of its servants employed in the handling of the crane? In view of the subtle and dangerous nature of electricity, the defendant, making use of it, was bound to the exercise of a very high degree of care for the protection of its employes against injury from such use. The accidental crossing or contact of wires, caused by their sagging or breaking, or by high winds and other causes, and the consequent charging of the wire carrying a light current with a dangerous current from a more heavily charged wire, is, in our opinion, of sufficiently frequent occurrence to have suggested to the defendant the liability to accident from that cause, and to have required it to take precautions against injury to its employés...