Paducah Ry. & Light Co. v. Bell's Adm'r

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BARKER, J.
• Citation: Paducah Ry. & Light Co. v. Bell's Adm'r, 85 S.W. 216 (Ky. Ct. App. 1905)
• Decision Date: 02 March 1905
• Parties: PADUCAH RY. & LIGHT CO. v. BELL'S ADM'R.

85 S.W. 216

PADUCAH RY. & LIGHT CO. v. BELL'S ADM'R.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 2, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, McCracken County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Charles E. Bell's administrator against the Paducah Railway & Light Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Reed &amp Berry, for appellant.

Campbell & Campbell, for appellee.

BARKER J.

Appellee's decedent, Charles E. Bell, was in the employ of the appellant, the Paducah Railway & Light Company, as lineman. It becoming necessary to tie a guy wire in an eye bolt on one of the corporation's poles in Paducah, he was directed to climb it and perform that service. When he reached that point on the pole which brought his head close to the first cross-arms, he was heard to utter an exclamation of pain or fright, which attracted the attention of several bystanders who looked up in time to see him fall head foremost to the pavement below, receiving injuries from which he in a few days died. This action was instituted by his administrator to recover damages for his death, that being alleged to have resulted from the negligence of appellant. There were two trials, the first resulting in a judgment in favor of appellee for $5,000, which, upon motion of appellant, was set aside by the trial judge, and a new trial granted, resulting in a verdict against appellant for the sum of $3,000, of which it is now complaining.

There are two theories as to the cause of Bell's death. That of appellee is that he was knocked from the pole by an electric shock, caused by defective insulation of appellant's wires. That of appellant is that, after he reached the point where he was to commence work, he undertook to place his safety belt around the pole and snap it in place; that by accident or oversight he failed to do this, and when he released the pole with his hands, expecting to be held safe by the belt, he fell to the pavement below. Both of these theories were submitted upon each of the trials, and both juries found adversely to appellant.

We have so often held that it is the duty of the employer to furnish the servant with a safe place in which to work that it hardly requires citation of authority in support of this proposition of law. Angel v. Jellico Coal Mining Co., 74 S.W 714, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 108; Covington Sawmill &amp Manufacturing Co. v. Clark, 76 S.W. 348, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 695. There was no evidence to show that Bell knew anything of the dangerous condition of the pole or the wires, assuming them to have been so. On the contrary, however, the theory of appellant is that the poles and wires were perfectly safe. In the case of McLaughlin v. Louisville Electric Light Co., 100 Ky. 193, 37 S.W. 856, 34 L. R. A. 812, it is said: "It seems clear to us that appellee should have been required to have had perfect protection on its wire at...