Ratliff v. Mexico Power Co.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1918
• Docket Number: No. 12547.,12547.
• Citation: 203 S.W. 232
• Parties: RATLIFF v. MEXICO POWER CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

203 S.W. 232

RATLIFF v. MEXICO POWER CO.

No. 12547.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri

April 29, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Macon County; Vernon L. Drain, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Hattie L. Ratliff against the Mexico Power Company. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

McBaine & Clark, of Columbia, for appellant. Don. C. Carter, of Sturgeon, J. M. Johnson, of Kansas City, and Dan R. Hughes, of Macon, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

Herein a wife seeks damages for the death of her husband caused, so she charges, by the negligence of the defendant with reference to the maintenance of its wires carrying high-powered and deadly currents of electricity. She obtained a verdict and judgment for $4,500, and defendant has appealed.

The city of Centralia owned a power house and system by which electricity could be distributed and sold to its inhabitants. Said power house also contained the pumping plant of the city's waterworks. Instead of producing electric current, however, the city purchased it of defendant, located at Mexico, Mo., under a contract running for 10 years from August 15, 1915. By the terms of this contract, the city granted defendant the right to set a line of poles on which the transmission lines from Mexico could be run into the power house, and therein defendant was granted sufficient space to set up its meter and equipment necessary to measure and deliver to the city, in said power house, all current used by the city either in its pumping operations or for street lighting purposes or for the retailing of electricity to its inhabitants. Under said contract defendant ran its transmission wires, each carrying 16,500 volts of electricity, into the power house and supplied the city with electricity from that time until the 10th day of February, 1917, the day plaintiff's husband was killed. The transmission wires were carried on poles about 30 feet above the ground until they reached a point about 33 feet southeast of the main or east front entrance of the power house, but from the last pole, located at said above-named point, said wires sloped down to and entered the power house over the said entrance (consisting of double doors), at a height of 10 feet and 3 inches above the ground or granitoid in front of the door.

A few feet east and slightly north of the power house was a laundry building, also owned by the city; its front door being on the south side thereof and a little over 26 feet northeast of the said main entrance to the power house, over which, as stated, the defendant's transmission wires entered. The ground on which the power house and laundry were located was owned by the city, and while there does not seem to have been any dedicated street on the ground in front of and between the entrances of these two buildings, yet it was open and uninclosed land, so that any one coming to either building could readily approach these doors passing near the said last pole and under the transmission wires sloping down to a point above the power house entrance as aforesaid. This laundry building had been moved to that location about December, 1916, and the city had leased it to one Morse. In putting in the necessary plumbing and steam fitting in the laundry, Morse's employés had, with the knowledge and permission of the city superintendent of the power house, as well as that of the city electrician, gone back and forth from the laundry into the power house, through the entrance aforesaid, to make use of the city's tools and workbench located therein. The evidence in plaintiff's favor tends to show that the laundry workmen were told by the city superintendent of the power house that if they needed anything in there to come in and use it, and Mr. Morse, lessee of the laundry building, testified that if he wanted to use any tool in the power house he went in and got it with the knowledge of the men in charge thereof, and if they needed anything in the laundry they went and got it. The evidence amply tends to show that frequently the workmen in the laundry came into the power house and made use of the tools and workbench therein, all with the knowledge and permission of those in charge of the building.

Plaintiff's husband was employed in the laundry by Mr. Morse, and on the morning of the 10th of February, 1917, a pipe in the laundry had frozen and bursted. It was necessary to take it out and replace it with another. Plaintiff's husband was assisting a man named Dudley in the work. It became necessary to cut a piece off a 14-foot length of pipe and put a thread thereon. To make use of the bench and vise in the power house, they decided to take the pipe in there and do the cutting. Plaintiff's husband went from the laundry into the power house and closed the door after him; it being the left door of the double doors aforesaid, and the one having the latch thereon. Shortly thereafter Dudley followed, carrying the pipe on his left shoulder and holding it with his left hand. As he approached the power house door, he could not reach the latch with the pipe in a horizontal position, so he dropped the front end thereof to the ground, holding the pipe in his left hand, and leaned forward to take hold of the latch. This brought the pipe into a more or less upright position, and the pipe came in contact with the high-powered wires a few feet above his head. At this moment, plaintiff's husband, inside of the power house, took hold of the latch to open the door, and the instant the pipe touched the wire the deadly current leaped down the pipe through Dudley's arm to the latch, and thence from it through Ratliff's body to the ground, killing Ratliff instantly and badly shocking and burning Dudley.

The evidence shows that, while the transmission wires had some insulating material on them, yet such insulation is not sufficient to afford protection against a current of over 600 volts, and that, where high-powered currents are carried, electricians and electric wire manufacturers do not depend upon insulation, but in aerial or overhead construction rely for safety upon placing the wires in high and out of the way places. It was shown that such wires were not placed over doors or near windows where persons might create a contact with them, but elsewhere, and that where the building to be entered was one story in height (as this one was) the better and frequently used way was to enter the building through a "penthouse" on the apex of the roof and have the current "stepped down" to less force by transformers in the building stationed as closely as possible to the point where the wires entered.

The negligence charged in the petition was:

"First. In bringing said wires into said power house over the main entrance thereto at a height so low that employes, invitees, or licensees, carrying pipes in" or out of said building might be injured by said pipes accidentally coming into contact with said wires.

"Second. In negligently providing insulation for said wires which was wholly insufficient and inadequate to confine said electricity to said wires, but which appeared to inexpert persons sufficient and adequate.

"Third. In negligently failing to incase said wires at said place in rubber or leaden casing or other insulation which would completely insulate said wires and prevent electricity from being diverted therefrom.

"Fourth. In negligently failing to provide a reasonably safe entrance to said power house at said place for the use of employes, servants, invitees, licensees, and other persons having business in said building."

It is very earnestly urged by the defendant that as a matter of law it is not liable, and that for this reason its demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained, and the case ought now to be reversed outright. This view proceeds upon the theory that the defendant owed no duty of protection to Ratliff; that at best he was a "bare licensee" on the premises for his own convenience and by permission of the city, not with the consent of the defendant...