Snyder v. Mut. Tel. Co.
Decision Date | 03 July 1907 |
Citation | 112 N.W. 776,135 Iowa 215 |
Parties | SNYDER v. MUTUAL TELEPHONE CO. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Hugh Brennan, Judge.
Action by plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of J. A. Synder, deceased, to recover in behalf of the estate damages for the death of the intestate, caused by an electrical shock while working as a lineman for the Des Moines Edison Light Company, alleged to have resulted by reason of the negligence of defendant in having an uninsulated guy wire connecting the light company's pole on which deceased was working at the time of his death with a pole of the defendant. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.Hume & Hamilton, for appellant.
A. H. McVey, E. H. McVey, and P. L. Sever, for appellee.
The deceased was one of a squad of employés of the Des Moines Edison Light Company taken out by the foreman in the afternoon of December 15, 1904, to do repair work in the lines of that company. They proceeded to a pole of the light company, where deceased, who was a lineman, was directed by the foreman to replace with a new one the fuse box on that pole, which had been burned out and damaged beyond repair. One Talbott, as ground man, was directed to assist deceased, and the foreman, with the other men of the squad, went further along the street to attend to other repairs. The pole on which deceased was to do his work was about 30 feet high. About 20 feet from the ground, there was a cross-arm running horizontally north and south, carrying feed wires of the Des Moines Street Railway Company, one of which was south of the pole. About 2 1/2 feet higher up there was a short cross-arm, supporting below it a box-like apparatus, called a “transformer,” or “converter.” Two and one-half feet further up was a third cross-arm, carrying electric light wires of the light company, and above this cross-arm was an iron box called a “cutout,” or “fuse box,” which was the instrument deceased was going up the pole to replace. As to the other cross-arms on the pole and the wires supported by them, nothing need be said, except that the wires were the ordinary electric lighting wires of the light company, save that on the seventh and top cross-arm were borne two wires of the light company, called “primary wires,” carrying a voltage of 2,080 volts, while the ordinary electric lighting wires, or secondary wires, carried a voltage of only 115 to 230 volts. The two primary wires, running east and west, one being supported on the top cross-arm north of the pole, and the other on the same cross-arm on the south of the pole, were connected by two corresponding feeders, running down the pole to the fuse box, which was double, and from the fuse box to the converter, from which latter instrument feeders went out to the secondary wires. The purpose of the converter is to change the voltage from that of the primary wires and by the wires connecting them with the fuse box, and through it with the transformer rendered the current extremely dangerous to handle, while the smaller voltage of the secondary wires is not necessarily dangerous. But it appears from the evidence that the converter may not only operate in transforming the high voltage of the primary wires to the low voltage of the necessary wires, but that, conversely, if a current passes through the converter from the secondary wires to the primary wires, it is transformed from the low voltage of the former to the high voltage of the latter. This fact is important, for it appears that before the accident happened the feeders between the primary wires and the fuse box had been cut and turned back.
About 20 minutes after deceased went up the fatal pole, Talbott came running to where the other men were at work, and called to them that Snyder had been killed, and they got to the place of the accident as soon as possible. One Clendeniel was the first to arrive, and saw the body of the deceased hanging to the pole by his safety belt, which was fastened above the second cross-arm, Climbing a telegraph pole which was very near to the pole of the light company, he found Snyder to be dead, and in his hand or hands the wire on the south side of the pole leading from the converter to the fuse box, but already cut or disconnected from the fuse box. This wire lay against the breast of deceased, and his clothing was on fire at this place. In the right hand deceased held his pliers, and when Clendeniel disturbed the body the right hand with the pliers dropped to the ground, having been burned off at the wrist. Clendeniel cut the wire which was in the left hand of deceased and in contact with his body, and at the time he cut it was a live wire. As the body hung suspended by the safety belt, according to Clendeniel's testimony, the left leg was thrown over the south feed wire of the railway company, and the left foot was resting upon a guy wire stretched from the pole of the light company to a pole of the defendant company, across the street to the south. The theory on which the liability of the defendant is predicated is that defendant was negligent in having an uninsulated guy wire connecting the light company's pole with defendant's own pole across the street, with which the foot of the deceased came in contact while he was handling the live wire extending from the converter to the fuse box, thus grounding the light company's circuit of a high voltage, and causing instant death. This guy wire was maintained by the defendant for the purpose of supporting its pole to the south, and a corresponding pole to the north was also connected with the pole of the light company by a similar guy wire. It is not shown whether it is usual to specially insulate such guy wires, but it seems to be conceded by the plaintiff that no such special insulation was necessary in this instance, for evidence was introduced for her tending to show that the guy wire to the south had a contact with the service wire of the defendant company, which was attached to it by means of a piece of scrap wire, so that the guy wire supported the service wire, and plaintiff claims that by means of this connection there was a grounding of the light company's circuit through the body of deceased when his left foot came in contact with the guy wire. The argument of plaintiff as to the connection between defendant's negligence and the injury to deceased is that deceased, supporting himself on the pole with his spurs and safety belt, handling the light company's live wire of high voltage with safety because of the insulation afforded by the wooden pole, slipped by reason of his spurs losing their support in the wood, and that in his struggle he threw his left foot over the street car service wire, and it came in contact with the guy wire which, owing to its connection with the service wire, afforded a grounding for the current. It should be said here, however, that there is a square conflict in the evidence as to the position of the left leg of deceased when his body was found. Another witness, who arrived soon after Clendeniel, testified that the legs of deceased were hanging limp down the pole, and that his left foot was not in contact with the guy wire.
This detailed explanation of the conditions and surroundings of the accident has been necessary in order that the bearing of the rulings of the court complained of by appellant and the correctness of the instructions given and refused over appellant's exceptions may be understood. It will be convenient to discuss the various errors which are argued in three groups; the first relating to the negligence of defendant, if any, and its proximate connection with the injury to deceased; second, relating to the question of contributory negligence of deceased; and the third referring to the question whether a certain so-called settlement between the plaintiff and the Des Moines Edison Light Company, to be hereafter more fully described, was such a settlement with a joint tort-feasor as to preclude any recovery against the defendant.
1. Errors are assigned on the admission over appellant's objections of testimony of witnesses with reference to the connection between the guy wire and the service wire of defendant two or three days after the accident; the objection being that the evidence did not relate to the condition at the time of the accident. There was testimony by one witness, however, that at the time of the accident he noticed that the guy wire and the service wire seemed to be in contact, and we think that the more detailed testimony as to the condition two or three days afterward, in the absence of any proof of change in condition in the meantime, was proper to be considered by the jury. There is complaint, also, of the refusal of the court to give an instruction asked by appellant that the evidence failed to show the death of intestate to be the direct and proximate result of any act of negligence on its part, and that a verdict should, therefore, be returned for it on this ground. Without going into the details of the evidence, the contention for appellant may be stated to be that the condition of deceased's body when first observed by Clendeniel indicated that the current passing through the body of deceased, causing his death, passed from the converter wire on the south side of the pole, which was held in his left hand, to the other converter wire on the north side of the pole, which deceased must have taken hold of with his pliers, and that, therefore, the contact of the foot of deceased, if any, with defendant's guy wire, had nothing to do with the injury. In support of this theory, counsel rely on evidence tending to show that before the body of deceased was taken down, and when his right hand dropped off, a piece of wire dropped with it, while the piece of wire cut by Clendeniel from the south side of the pole still remained in the left hand of deceased. It is also contended with much...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stires v. Sherwood
... ... Bell v. Perry, 43 Iowa, 368; Texarkana Tel. Co ... v. Pemberton, 86 Ark. 329, 111 S.W. 257; [75 Or. 113] ... Louisville Times Co ... 405, [75 Or ... 116] 65 A. 138, 118 Am. St. Rep. 146, 8 Ann. Cas. 344; ... Snyder v. Mutual Tel. Co., 135 Iowa, 215, 112 N.W ... 776, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 321; Brewer v ... ...
- Snyder v. Mutual Tel. Co.
- Elzig v. Bales
-
Henry v. Henry
...and not for alienation at all,--at least that it may have been so; and that appellant has not shown that such was not the case. In the Snyder case, supra, the resulted in death, and by one act, a shock. But suppose deceased had been injured or crippled by one person, and three months or six......