Royal v. Bar Harbor & Union River Power Co.

• Decision Date: 14 December 1915
• Citation: 95 A. 945
• Parties: ROYAL v. BAR HARBOR & UNION RIVER POWER CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

95 A. 945

ROYAL

v. BAR HARBOR & UNION RIVER POWER CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 14, 1915.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Hancock County, at Law.

Action by Grace M. Royal, administratrix, against the Bar Harbor & Union River Power Company.Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.Exceptions overruled.

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and KING, BIRD, HALEY, and HANSON, JJ.

D. E. Hurley, of Ellsworth, and O. F. Fellows, of Bangor, for plaintiff.Hale & Hamlin, of Ellsworth, for defendant.

SAVAGE, C. J. Action under Revised Statutes, c. 89, § 9, for damages resulting from the negligence of the defendant, whereby the plaintiff's intestate was instantly killed.The case comes before this court on the defendant's exceptions to the allowance of an amendment to the plaintiff's declaration, and, on the plaintiff's exceptions to the direction of a verdict for the defendant.

It will not be necessary to consider the defendant's exceptions, for we think that the direction of a verdict for the defendant was right.And the overruling of the plaintiff's exceptions will finally dispose of the case.

It is well settled that in considering exceptions to the direction of a verdict, the only question is whether the jury would have been warranted by the evidence to find a verdict contrary to the one ordered.If a verdict to the contrary could not be sustained, it is the duty of the presiding justice to direct the verdict.If such a verdict would be sustainable, the issue of fact should be submitted to the jury.Horigan v. Chalmers Co., 111 Me. 111, 88 Atl. 357;Johnson v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 111 Me. 263, 88 Atl. 988;Shackford v. N. E. Telephone & Telegraph Co., 112 Me. 204, 91 Atl. 931.In this case there is not much conflict in the evidence.And the facts upon which hinge the vital and decisive questions in the case seem to be not only undisputed, but indisputable.

The deceased was a competent, professional electrician of 16 years' experience.He was employed by one Grindal to install a three phase, 550 volts, 60 cycle electric motor, in a storehouse, to do the necessary inside wiring, and connect it with the motor.The defendant company was engaged to supply the electric power for running the motor from its 2,300-volt service, which was strung on poles along the side of the Grindal building, the current for the building being reduced to 550 volts by a transformer.The employment of the deceased required him to lay three wires from the motor upon the timbers of the building to and through the wall, and so to leave the ends of the wires that the defendant could connect with them wires from its service wire.Prior to the accident the deceased had laid the wires in the building and the defendant had connected its wires on the outside.But contrary to the usual practice, the plaintiff had not placed switches or fuses in the wires, so as to guard by fuses against an unusual current, or to cut out the current by switches.

At the precise moment of the accident the electric current was on, and the deceased had begun to make the connection between the ends of the wires he had laid, from which the insulation had been removed, with the wires in the motor.At the instant, no one saw him.But he was heard to moan, and fell to the platform dead.Deep burns were found across the fingers of both hands, one being burned nearly to the bone.In her original declaration, which we refer to for a reason to be noted hereafter, the plaintiff alleged the negligence of the defendant to consist in the fact that "because of a leaky transformer, and other defects in said wires and transformer the current that was suffered to run and be directed into the storehouse was not reduced to a voltage of 550 volts, but was of the full force and volume of 2,300 volts," and that the deceased, "believing that said wires running into said building carried only a voltage of 550 volts," attempted to connect the wire with the motor.But in the count substituted by amendment, the one upon which this verdict rests, she alleged that the defendant was negligent in that it connected the wires outside, and thus let on the current without the knowledge of the deceased, that he did not know that the wires he was working on were connected with any of the defendant's wires, and that because of a leaky transformer the current was not reduced.

The plaintiff in argument stoutly contends that it was negligence on the part of the defendant to connect the wires before any switch or fuses had been put in, without any notice to the deceased that the connection had been made.And so it would be if such was the fact.But the defendant, on the other hand, contends, and its evidence, which is uncontradicted, tends to show, that on the morning of the day of the accident the deceased met the servants of the defendant whose duty it was to make the connection, and asked if they had fuses and switches, and said he wanted to borrow a switch to put in;...