Morrison v. Appalachian Power Co.
| Citation | 84 S.E. 506,75 W.Va. 608 |
| Parties | MORRISON v. APPALACHIAN POWER CO. |
| Decision Date | 16 February 1915 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
Submitted February 3, 1915.
Syllabus by the Court.
Ownership of an electric light and power wire, supplying current to a pumping station situate outside of the corporate limits of a town, and used in supplying water to the inhabitants thereof is reasonably to be inferred from proof of ownership of the power plant and electric lighting system within the town, and from proof that all the wires are supplied with electricity from the same power plant.
An electric company is liable to a traveler on the highway for an injury received by coming in contact with a broken telephone wire, not owned or controlled by it, but which it has suffered to become charged with a dangerous current of electricity from its own wire by falling across it in the highway, and so remaining for an unreasonable length of time.
Reasonable care and negligence are relative terms, and the degree of care required in a given case must be commensurate with the dangers to be avoided. In handling so dangerous an agency as electricity a high degree of care is not unreasonable.
Error to Circuit Court, Mercer County.
Action by William Morrison against the Appalachian Power Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Bernard McClaugherty and French & Easley, all of Bluefield, for plaintiff in error.
Greever & Gillespie, of Tazewell, and Sanders & Crockett, of Bluefield, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff was driving a team of horses along a narrow public road, walking beside his team, and, seeing a broken telephone wire lying across the ditch and extending into the road, and fearing it would become entangled in his wagon wheels, stooped to pick it up and throw it out of the road and was severely shocked and burned. It happened to be highly charged with electricity. He sued and recovered a judgment for $3,000 against defendant, and it brings error.
The principal error relied on is the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict, on the ground that it is not supported by the evidence. The telephone wire, harmless in itself, was charged by being in contact with an electric light and power wire, strung beneath it on the same poles, and across which it had fallen. Two telephone wires, and a signal wire connecting with the town's water tank to indicate the quantity of water therein, ran to the pump station, a mile and a half from the town of Pocahontas. These wires are admitted to be the property of the Pocahontas Light & Water Company, a subsidiary of the Pocahontas Consolidated Collieries Company. The electric light wire extended from the power plant in the town of Pocahontas to the pump station furnishing light and power thereto, and was formerly owned and controlled by the Pocahontas Light & Water Company. But about a year previous to the accident, defendant purchased from said last-named company its electric power plant and wires in the town of Pocahontas. Plaintiff contends that it also purchased and took control of the electric light wire running to the pump station, and defendant contends that it is not proven by the evidence that it did. Defendant's liability depends upon the proper determination of that controverted question of fact. If it did not own and control the electric light and power wire, of course it owed no duty to keep it in a safe condition, and is not liable. It is not seriously contended that negligence on the part of the owner of the wire is not shown, nor that the jury were not justified, by the evidence in exonerating plaintiff from contributory negligence; neither is it claimed that the verdict is excessive. The chief contention of defendant's counsel is that there is not sufficient evidence to prove defendant's ownership and control of the wire. But, after carefully reading and considering the record in connection with the carefully prepared briefs and oral argument of counsel on both sides of the case, we are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence on the question of ownership to justify the jury in answering affirmatively the special interrogatory as to whether or not defendant owned it at the time plaintiff was injured. Defendant's contract of purchase from the Pocahontas Light & Water Company was in writing, and was not in evidence. Counsel for defendant insists that its purchase was confined to the wires strung within the corporate limits of the town of Pocahontas, and did not include the wire running to the pump station. There is no positive testimony by any of defendant's witnesses that it did not own and control the wire. It relies upon the weakness of plaintiff's evidence to prove that it did own it. Suppose the written contract of purchase had been produced, and that it appeared not to mention specially the wire running to the pump station as a part of the plant and lighting system included in the contract, would not the reasonable presumption be, if it was not excepted, that it was included within the general terms of description of the property sold? We are inclined to think so. It is hardly reasonable that defendant would have purchased the power plant and all electric light wires fed thereby, except the one extending out of town to the pump station, without some special reason therefor and some agreement respecting the supply of electricity...
To continue reading
Request your trial