Roster v. Inter-State Power Co.
| Decision Date | 20 July 1931 |
| Docket Number | 7174. |
| Citation | 237 N.W. 738,58 S.D. 521 |
| Parties | ROSTER v. INTER-STATE POWER CO. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County; Ray E. Dougherty Judge.
Action by Margaret May Roster, as administratrix of the estate of Theodore I. Roster, deceased, against the Inter-State Power Company. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Parliman & Parliman, of Sioux Falls, for appellant.
Krause & Krause and E. P. Van Buren, all of Dell Rapids, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order overruling defendant's demurrer to the complaint of the plaintiff, who, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Theodore I. Roster brought this action to recover damages from the defendant for the death of said decedent.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendant owned and operated an electric light and power plant in the city of Hartford and supplied the citizens and residents of that city and community with electric current for lighting purposes that for a consideration defendant undertook to furnish Theodore I. Roster as one of its customers electric current sufficient in quantity and volume for the purpose of lighting his dwelling house; that for such purpose the defendant had erected and maintained main or primary wires strung on poles along the street immediately west of the Roster dwelling house, capable of transmitting electric current of some 2,200 volts, and that contact therewith is death-dealing to human life; that for the purpose of furnishing said Roster with electric current for his dwelling house the defendant had extended secondary wires to the dwelling house; that 110 volts is a safe and sufficient current for lighting purposes; that to transmit such quantity over the secondary wires defendant had installed and maintained an instrument known as a transformer, designed to reduce and limit the current from the primary wires to 110 volts to pass over the secondary wires into the dwelling house for lighting purposes; that defendant connected its secondary wires to the lighting system in the dwelling house for the purpose of furnishing and supplying electric current sufficient and safe in quantity for lighting the dwelling; that it was defendant's duty to construct and equip its plant for supplying current in such manner and with such devices, and maintain and operate the same, so as to enable it at all times to control and to limit the current by it supplied over its wires and equipment to the lighting system in the Roster dwelling, and to maintain the use thereof safe and not harmful to Theodore I. Roster and members of his family residing with him; that on the contrary the defendant did so negligently construct, install, maintain, and operate its plant and source of its supply of electric current as to, and did so negligently and carelessly, permit passage onto and transmit over its equipment and secondary wires into the Roster dwelling on the night of June 3, 1930, of such excessively dangerous and death-dealing current of electricity as to cause the instant death of Theodore I. Roster, by and through an electric current sustained by him through such excessive current, without fault or negligence on his part, when he came in contact with and touched a switch and drop cord of the lighting system in his house, which shock so received by him was the proximate and direct cause of his death and was occasioned by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant in permitting excessive, dangerous, and death-producing current of electricity to be transmitted to and to traverse the wires running to and into the dwelling house of the decedent; that there was left surviving said Theodore I. Roster, the plaintiff, his wife, and his infant son, both of whom on account of his death have sustained pecuniary loss and damage in the sum of $20,000 and the further sum of $300 for burial of the decedent.
The defendant demurred to plaintiff's complaint on the grounds: "(1) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person or the subject matter of the action, and (2) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." The demurrer was overruled by the trial court.
Plaintiff instituted this action under statutes of this state permitting the recovery for death by wrongful act. Sections 2929-2931, R. C. 1919. These sections create rights and recognize remedies unknown to the common law. Independent of statutory authority there is no cause of action arising from the death of a human being. Rowe v. Richards et al., 35 S.D. 201, 151 N.W. 1001, L. R. A. 1915E, 1075, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 294; Panama Ry. Co. v. Rock, 266 U.S. 209, 45 S.Ct. 58, 69 L.Ed. 250; Keasler v. Mil. Elec. Ry. & Light Co., 195 Wis. 108, 217 N.W. 687.
Plaintiff alleges damages in the sum of $20,300, and the prayer for relief is in the same amount. Defendant contends that the allegations of the complaint disclose an action upon which the jurisdiction of the circuit court does not attach. Defendant relies in support of its contention upon the following provision of section 2931, R. C. 1919: "In every action the jury may give such damages, not exceeding in any case ten thousand dollars, as they may think proportionate to the pecuniary injury resulting from such death to the persons respectively for whose benefit such action shall be brought."
It is not the purpose of this provision to define the jurisdiction of circuit courts or to prohibit the exercise of jurisdiction where the amount involved or claimed exceeds a fixed amount. There is a recognition in this statutory limitation that the value of a human life may exceed $10,000, and to relieve defendants from possible oppression the Legislature has fixed the maximum recovery. There may be allegation and proof of the actual pecuniary...
To continue reading
Request your trial