Princeton Light & Power Co. v. Ballard

• Decision Date: 23 June 1915
• Docket Number: No. 8663.,8663.
• Citation: 59 Ind.App. 345,109 N.E. 405
• Parties: PRINCETON LIGHT & POWER CO. v. BALLARD.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

59 Ind.App. 345

109 N.E. 405

PRINCETON LIGHT & POWER CO.

v.BALLARD.

No. 8663.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

June 23, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Knox County; Orlando H. Cobb, Judge.

Action by James H. Ballard, administrator, against the Princeton Light & Power Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

John W. Brady, of Evansville, for appellant. R. W. Armstrong, of Huntingburg, and T. W. Cullen, of Princeton, for appellee.

IBACH, P. J.

Action in tort by appellee to recover damages for the death of his decedent, alleged to have been caused by appellant's neglect.

The material allegations of the complaint are substantially as follows: That on October 27, 1904, appellant operated an electric lighting plant, and furnished and distributed electricity therefrom for lighting at the shops of the Southern Railway Company, where Henry Rowe was then working for that company; that appellant furnished and distributed electricity to such shops by means of two wires, one called a primary wire, and one called a secondary wire; that the primary wire then carried 2,200 volts of electricity to a transformer, which reduced the voltage to 106 volts and carried the same to the secondary wire, and through it to the place where Henry Rowe was working in the shops, and where an electric wire was suspended from such secondary wire to make light for Henry Rowe while at work; that Henry Rowe tried to turn the electricity from the secondary wire into an electric lamp which hung to such suspended wire, and there received into his body, without any fault or negligence of his own, 2,200 volts of electricity, because the primary and secondary wires crossed one another, so that all the voltage from the primary wire was projected into his body, and appellant then knew, and by the exercise of ordinary care could have known, of the dangerous voltage passing then and there into such secondary wire; that Henry Rowe died of his injuries and left surviving him as his heirs his parents and brother, to whose support he was contributing at the time of his death. The issues were closed by the filing of an answer of general denial and an affirmative answer which we need not consider, for it is admitted by appellant that the proof failed to support it. The cause was tried by a jury, and a general verdict for appellee was returned, awarding damages in the sum of $1,000. Judgment was rendered on the verdict.

The reversal of the judgment is sought on the ground that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. A number of specifications are assigned in the motion; but, in view of our determination of the case, we need only consider the specifications which have to do with the giving of certain instructions to the jury and a refusal to give others.

The evidence in the case being conflicting, the appellee would be entitled to retain his judgment if there was no error in refusing to give instructions requested by appellant. See Gilbert v. Duluth Gen. Electric Co., 93 Minn. 99, 100 N. W. 653, 106 Am. St. Rep. 430;Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice Co., 111 La. 522, 35 South. 731, 64 L. R. A. 101, 100 Am. St. Rep. 515;Parsons v. Charleston Electric Co., ...