Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co. v. Butler
| Decision Date | 07 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | 30493. |
| Parties | OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. v. BUTLER. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient, producing cause, without which the injury would not have occurred, the injury may be attributed to any or to all of such causes.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Albert C. Hunt, Judge.
Action by Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company against J. R. Butler doing business as the Mill Creek Telephone Company, for damages alleged to have resulted to plaintiff's telephone distribution system by reason of defendant's negligence. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Rainey Flynn, Green & Anderson and Hugh F. Owens, all of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Herman Merson, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff doing business as The Mill Creek Telephone Company, brought this action to recover for damages alleged to have resulted to plaintiff's telephone distribution system by reason of defendant's negligence. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $586.75, and from the judgment rendered on this verdict defendant has appealed.
Plaintiff maintained a telephone system in the town of Mill Creek, and certain of these lines ran north and south along an unnamed street. The lines were carried on cross-arms attached to poles, each cross-arm carrying about ten wires.
Defendant's lines in the town, carrying high voltage, ran east and west at this particular point, intersecting plaintiff's lines and being on poles, holding defendant's lines about ten feet above plaintiff's lines. Approximately fifty feet east of this point of intersection there was a pole supporting defendant's lines; approximately one hundred and fifty feet east of this pole was another, and some hundred and fifty feet west of the point of intersection was another pole. The lines were fastened to these poles by the usual insulators.
The defendant's line broke at a point about one hundred feet east of the point of intersection of the lines, or about fifty feet east of the middle pole, this being the pole located to the east of the point of intersection of the lines. When broken the defendant's lines sagged down upon plaintiff's lines, transmitting the electrical current through plaintiff's telephone system and thereby causing the switchboard to be burned and damaged.
Plaintiff alleged defendant was careless and negligent in the following particulars: (1) In maintenance and operation of the electrical system, in that the 2,300-volt circuit was on wires which were weak, unsound and unable to carry the current, the line having broken because of structural weakness; (2) the defendant failed to maintain proper fuses, or circuit breakers, in that the fuses used permitted the current to flow into the plaintiff's wires for approximately fifteen minutes after the break before the circuit shut off; (3) defendant failed to properly secure the wires of its lines to insulators, and the supporting poles were improperly braced, in that although there was a supporting pole between the point of the break and the intersection of defendant's lines with plaintiff's lines, the wires sagged downward approximately seven feet, thereby falling upon plaintiff's lines and transmitting the current into them.
Defendant's answer to the plaintiff's allegations of negligence was in the form of a general denial.
Defendant showed, by the testimony of a boy, twelve years of age, that this boy had thrown a piece of old electric extension cord over defendant's lines at the point of the break some two or three days prior to the happening of the event causing the injury. This evidence was corroborated by the boy's father. It is the defendant's theory that, even if conceded that its line was loosely tied to the insulators, this was an entirely remote cause of the event, inasmuch as the act of this boy in throwing this wire over defendant's line was a responsible act of an intelligent human agent, which set in motion the chain of circumstances and thereby became the efficient, moving cause of the injury. Thus, defendant insists, it was not bound to anticipate the result of an independent act of this kind and is therefore relieved from liability.
Plaintiff's evidence consisted of testimony showing the facts of the occurrence of the injury, the nature and amount of damage resulting. Plaintiff also introduced the testimony of one Shaw. This witness testified he had been an electrical worker for approximately fifteen years, had worked for different companies in this and in other states, and had installed and worked in the maintenance of electric power lines, and had knowledge of the construction and maintenance, and had repaired lines and insulators. This witness testified positively that if an electrical line was properly tied to the insulators it would not sag more than two feet in the first section of line adjoining such break, and if it did sag more than this it would be because of a loose tie on the line.
This witness further testified that a circuit breaker was a cut-off used for overload and ground protection, the purpose of which was to shut off the power if a highline came in contact with anything, and if properly constructed it should break the circuit and shut off the current when a break occurred. The testimony of plaintiff indicated the circuit breaker did not work and...
To continue reading
Request your trial