Nagle v. Hake

• Decision Date: 15 November 1904
• Citation: 101 N.W. 409,123 Wis. 256
• Parties: NAGLE v. HAKE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

123 Wis. 256

101 N.W. 409

NAGLE

v.HAKE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 15, 1904.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Orren T. Williams, Judge.

Action by Arthur Nagle, by his guardian ad litem, against William Hake. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the infant plaintiff by accidentally coming in contact with a telephone wire charged with a heavy current of electricity. There is very little dispute as to the facts. It appears by the evidence that the appellant, Hake, was a house mover by occupation, in Milwaukee; that about June 20, 1901, he was moving a building along Walker street, which is a street running east and west on the south side of said city; that an unused telephone wire was stretched across Walker street, belonging to the Julius Andrae & Sons Company, a manufacturing corporation, which wire came from the north and crossed National avenue, another east and west street, one block north of Walker street; that on the north side of National avenue this wire was fastened to a shop building, and on the south side to a bracket upon a pole, and then proceeded along Barclay street south to Walker street; that as this wire crossed National avenue it hung a few inches above an electric light wire heavily charged with electricity, belonging to the Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, protected only with a coating of weather insulation; that the plaintiff was a boy eight years of age, and lived with his parents on the west side of Barclay street, between National avenue and Walker street, and near the latter street; that when Hake reached this wire with his building he cut it, and rolled up the end for some distance in a coil on his arm, and hung the coil on a nail on the south side of the Nagle house, about 3 1/2 to 4 feet from the ground, and close to a walk used by the family; that this coil remained so hung up till about June 28th, when the plaintiff accidentally touched it as he was standing near the house, and was very severely burned, and received injuries from which he suffered for a long time. It further appeared from the evidence that the wire had sagged down where it crossed National avenue until it rested on the electric light wire, and that the insulation of the latter wire had worn off, so that the telephone wire received the charge of electricity conveyed by the electric light wire. The Julius Andrae & Sons Company was also made defendant originally, but on the trial the action was dismissed as to it.

The jury returned the following special verdict: “(1) Was Arthur Nagle, the plaintiff, injured on June 28, 1901, by receiving an electric shock from a telephone wire left by the defendant, Hake, hanging by the side of the house in which he lived, on Barclay street, in the city of Milwaukee? A. (by the Court, by consent of counsel). Yes. (2) Was the plaintiff's injury the natural and probable result of a want of ordinary care on the part of the defendant, William Hake, in breaking, coiling up, and hanging said wire by the side of the plaintiff's house on or about June 21, 1901? A. Yes. (3) Ought William Hake, as a man of ordinary intelligence and prudence, in the performance of said act, to have foreseen, in the light of the attending circumstances, that he had done something which would be likely to cause a personal injury of some kind to a person near the age of the plaintiff? A. Yes. (4) Ought the defendant, Hake, in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, to have foreseen, in the light of the attending circumstances, that in cutting, breaking, coiling up, and leaving the telephone wire as he did at the time and place and under the attending circumstances, a personal injury might probably and naturally be caused thereby to some person? A. Yes. (5) Did want of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff's father contribute to produce the injury he received? A. No. (6) Did want of ordinary care on the part of plaintiff's mother contribute to produce the injury he received? A. No. (7) What sum of money will compensate the plaintiff for his injury? A. Twelve hundred and fifty dollars; five hundred dollars to be deducted.” On this verdict the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.Hoyt, Doe, Umbreit & Olwell, for appellant.

McElroy & Eschweiler, for respondent.

WINSLOW, J. (after stating the facts).

The assignments of error are very numerous, and we shall not treat each one separately, but shall endeavor to classify them, and treat each class sufficiently in detail to indicate the conclusions reached on all of the assignments separately.

The alleged errors in refusing to grant a nonsuit, and in refusing to direct a verdict, and in refusing to direct judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, may all be considered and disposed of together. It is said that there is no proof of actionable negligence, nor of proximate cause sufficient to take the case to the jury. With this we cannot agree. In the present day it is a well-known fact that our streets are full of electric light wires crossing and recrossing each other in every direction, and that some of these wires, especially those transmitting light or heat or power, are charged with deadly currents; and it is also well known that when such a wire is naked, either from having lost its insulation or because necessarily in that condition, like a trolley wire, and comes in contact with another naked wire, the second wire also becomes charged with the current. It requires no college education to know these general facts. Any man actively participating in the affairs of the world, especially in a business which every day necessitates the removal and cutting of such wires, as did the defendant's business, must be presumed to know something of the dangers which lurk ever near the handling of such wires. From the very fact of these known dangers he must necessarily be charged with a higher degree of caution and diligence than one who is dealing with sticks and stones which can convey no such concealed death stroke. As has been said, the defendant was a house mover. His business required the examination and cutting or other disposal of electric wires almost daily. He necessarily must have known something of the dangers lurking about them, and the possibility of contact with a highly charged wire. We think it was certainly for the jury to say whether, in hanging this wire on the side of the Nagle house, within reach of a child, and leaving it there, he was guilty of a negligent act, and an act from which an...