Peters v. Lynchburg

• Decision Date: 11 June 1908
• Parties: PETERS. v. LYNCHBURG, ETC, LIGHT CO.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

108 Va. 333

61 S.E. 745

PETERS.

v.LYNCHBURG, ETC, LIGHT CO.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 11, 1908.

1. Negligence—Res Ipsa Loquitur—Application of Doctrine.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, that, where the thing causing the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of defendant or his servant and the occurrence is such that in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by defendant, that the occurrence arose from want of care, rests on the assumption that the thing is under the exclusive management of defendant, and the evidence of the true cause of the accident is accessible to him and inaccessible to the person injured, and it has no application where the accident is due to a defective appliance under the management of plaintiff, or to a case involving divided responsibility, where the unexplained accident may have been attributable to one of several causes for some of which defendant is not responsible.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 37, Negligence, §§ 217-234.]

2. Electricity—Injuries Incident to Use-Negligence—Evidence.

An owner wired his house with electricity under the inspection of the electrician of the city. The wiring and electrical equipment belonged to the owner. In turning off an incandescent light in the house, he received an electric shock, and sued the electric company furnishing electricity. Two experts agreed that excessive voltage could only nave been transmitted into the building by one of two means—either by the transformer being out of order or by a crossing of the secondary wire with some other wire of higher voltage—neither of which was found to exist, and they expressed the opinion that the accident was due to the circumstance that the brass on the light bulb protruded from the socket in such a way that, when the light was on, the upper end of the brass was in contact with the wires in the socket. Their theory was sustained by other evidence. Held not to establish actionable negligence; the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur being inapplicable.

Error to Corporation Court of Lynchburg.

Action by one Peters against the Lynchburg, etc., Light Company. There was a judgment for defendant on a demurrer to the evidence, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Don P. Halsey, for plaintiff in error.

Horsley, Kemp & Easley, for defendant in error.

WHITTLE, J. The declaration in this case, after first setting forth that the defendant is an electric light company located in the city of Lynchburg and engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the citizens of that city for lighting purposes, alleges (1) that the defendant negligently suffered an excessive current of electricity to remain upon its wires leading into the plaintiff's dwelling; (2) that it negligently permitted its secondary wire, used for conducting electricity into the building, to become crossed with its other wires, thus carrying a dangerous voltage of electricity therein; and (3) that it negligently failed to keep in proper rendition a suitable transformer to reduce thevoltage of electricity carried by its primary or high tension wires, so as to transmit a safe current to its secondary or low tension wires leading into the dwelling. And, as the proximate result of these several acts of negligence, it is charged that the plaintiff, in turning off an incandescent light in his kitchen, received a shock from the overcharged wire, which occasioned the injury for which he demands damages of the defendant.

The trial court entered judgment for the defendant on a demurrer to the evidence, to which ruling the plaintiff brings error.

The defendant had neither ownership nor control of the electric appliances on the plaintiff's premises. The house was wired by the owner, under the inspection of the city electrician, and the wiring and electric equipment were his property. The two experts who examined the premises to discover the cause of the accident are agreed that excessive voltage could only have been transmitted into the building by one of two means —either by the transformer being out of order,...