Russell v. Sioux City Gas & Elec. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 41329.,41329. |
| Citation | 215 Iowa 1405,245 N.W. 705 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. SIOUX CITY GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; R. H. Munger, Judge.McCormick & McCormick, of Sioux City, for appellant.
Jepson, Struble & Sifford, of Sioux City, for appellee.
The former opinion in this cause, reported in volume 243 of the Northwestern Reporter, on page 176, is hereby withdrawn, and the following opinion is substituted in lieu thereof. The petition for rehearing in said cause filed is overruled.
All Justices concur.
Alonzo T. Russell died in Sioux City, Iowa, on August 10, 1929, as the result of a contact with a high-tension wire of the defendant-appellee, the Sioux City Gas & Electric Company. The plaintiff-appellant, Lena Russell, was later duly appointed the administratrix of the Alonzo T. Russell estate. As such administratrix, she brings the present action to recover from the appellee damages for the alleged wrongful death of her intestate.
At the time of Russell's death, Dupont street, in Sioux City, was paved and extended north and south. Thirty-Fourth street was unpaved and is about 40 feet in width. This street extends east and west, and intersects Dupont street at right angles. Prior to the decedent's death, the city of Sioux City had been, and at the time thereof was, installing on Thirty-Fourth street a sewer system. Such system extended on Thirty-Fourth street west from Dupont street. A ditch had been dug west of Dupont street, on Thirty-Fourth, and some of the sewer pipes at the time in question were placed in the excavation. Apparently the ditch was 6 or 7 feet deep and 16 or 17 inches in width. It seems that the construction of the sewer system had progressed to the point where it became necessary to place a siphon under a creek. To do this, required the mixing of cement with which to fasten the joints.
On the day in question, the appellant's intestate was engaged in mixing the cement on the Dupont street paving. As he mixed the cement, he then carried it approximately 125 feet to the point of the siphon. At about 9:30 o'clock on the morning in question, Russell, for the purposes of his work, was walking along the edge of the sewer ditch in Thirty-Fourth street, when he came in contact with a live wire belonging to the appellee company. This wire was from a high-tension line carrying approximately 2,300 volts.
For some time before, and on, the day in question, the appellee maintained the high-tension line along Dupont street. Such line consisted of wires supported by, and elevated on, poles. Early Saturday morning on August 10, 1929, there was a storm in Sioux City, and as a result thereof the aforesaid high-tension wire of the appellee, extending along the westerly line of Dupont street across Thirty-Fourth street, broke near the northerly side of Thirty-Fourth street. That break occurred between 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning. This electric wire was lying on the ground across the ditch. Sparks would shoot from the wire, where the insulation was off near the end, when the wind was blowing. Apparently the end of the wire was north of the ditch in the grass.
When the men came to work that morning at about 8 o'clock, the high-tension wire was on the ground, as before explained. Russell, the appellant's intestate, at the time of the accident, was about 50 years of age. He had contracted for the construction of that part of the sewer system to which reference has been made heretofore. Previously Russell had taken a subcontract from one Devlin, who had the principal contract for the entire work. The subcontractor, Russell, undertook to construct 216 feet of the ditch. Under the subcontract, Russell began his work on Tuesday afternoon, and the accident occurred on the Saturday morning following. Before going to work on Saturday morning, Russell traveled past the construction job to the home of George Edge. This was a little before 8 o'clock in the morning. Russell went to the Edge home for the purpose of using the telephone.Edge at the time was an employee of Russell. Both were working on the sewer construction job.
After Russell telephoned, he and Edge left the latter's home for the work. They had progressed a certain distance together on their course to the work when Edge returned to his house for the purpose of notifying the appellee company that the above-mentioned wire was down. Accordingly Edge called the appellee company on the telephone and reported the broken wire and the dangerous condition on the street. In response to Edge's telephone call, the appellee company promised to “take care of it.” This call to the appellee company was made by Edge at about 8 o'clock in the morning. Following the telephone conversation with the appellee company, Edge went to the construction job and worked there with...
To continue reading
Request your trial