Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. Hutchins, 2443.
Decision Date | 07 February 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 2443.,2443. |
Citation | 68 S.W.2d 1085 |
Parties | SOUTHWESTERN GAS & ELECTRIC CO. v. HUTCHINS. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; T. O. Davis, Judge.
Action by G. O. Hutchins against the Southwestern Gas & Electric Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Davis, Avery & Wallace, of Center, and George Prendergast, of Marshall, for appellant.
J. J. Collins, of Lufkin, and Sanders & McLeroy, of Center, for appellee.
While appellee, G. O. Hutchins, was assisting in carrying a wire cable, attached to the top of a wooden oil derrick 135 feet high, to an anchor about 190 feet immediately south from the foot of the derrick, under the electric wires of appellant, Southwestern Gas & Electric Company, the cable was brought close enough to the electric wires to cause the electricity to jump from the wires to the cable, thereby killing one of appellee's fellow workmen and injuring him and the others, who were holding the cable at the time. On the jury's verdict convicting appellant of negligence "in maintaining the electric wires in question in an uninsulated and bare condition at the point where the accident in question occurred," and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, appellee was awarded judgment for $2,990. Appellant asserts that the evidence failed to raise against it this issue of negligence. This proposition is overruled.
That the wires were not insulated was conceded. At the time appellant's electric wires were carrying 11,000 volts of electricity. Its expert witness and employee, Mr. George D. Pollock, testified:
But on this issue he gave the following additional testimony:
Appellant's wires were strung on poles 25 feet and 9 inches above the ground at the lowest point in their "sag," and had been erected according to a well-recognized scientific code. The derrick in question was in the residential section of the town of Kilgore, and was erected before appellant built its electric line. Appellant's trouble shooter, Mr. Orville Womack, testified:
The derrick was on the Knoles tract of land, upon which the Oriental Oil Company had an oil and gas lease. The oil company erected its derrick 154 feet from the dividing line between the Knoles tract of land and the Lewis Alexander tract of land immediately south, and Hutchins Bros. were at the time dismantling the derrick under contract with this oil company, doing this in the usual and customary manner used at the time in the Kilgore oil field, by cutting the uprights of the derrick about 30 feet from the top and then pulling the top out of the derrick in the manner stated. The Lewis Alexander tract was under an oil lease to Degner Oil Company. Hutchins Bros. had general permission from Degner Oil Company to enter upon any and all of its leases in the Kilgore oil field whenever necessary in the due prosecution of their work but no special permission to enter the Lewis Alexander tract on the morning of the accident. The Lewis Alexander tract of land was located not far from the business section of the town of Kilgore, and the public generally used it as a public place, whenever a member of the public had business in the oil field that required its use going in and out, over and across, this land, just as the business district of the town was used, paying no attention to the dividing lines between this tract and adjacent property. All this was done with the consent and acquiescence of Lewis Alexander and his lessee and the other adjacent property owners. Appellant did not maintain any warning sign or notice that its wires were electric wires highly charged with electricity. Neither appellee nor any of his fellow workmen knew the character of these wires nor that they were charged with electricity. Though erected according to a recognized scientific code, there was testimony to the effect that appellant had installed its wires nearer the ground than was usual in cities, and there was testimony to the effect that some of its electric wires in other sections of the town of Kilgore were insulated. The derrick was in the residential section of the town of Kilgore. Appellee and his associates, immediately prior to the time he was shocked, had carried the cable to an anchor imbedded in the ground on the Lewis Alexander tract, immediately south of the derrick, and about 35 feet from the line of the Knoles tract. They were attempting to fasten the end of the cable to this anchor; the method being then for the workmen to pull on the cable, thereby pulling the top out of the derrick. The cable did not come in actual contact with the electric wires, but in attempting to fasten it to the anchor appellee and his fellow workmen caused it to come within about a foot of the electric wires, when the electricity jumped from the wires to the cable, thereby killing one of the workmen and shocking appellee and the others. The day of the accident the weather was damp with some rain. Appellant's expert testimony was to the effect that the electricity could not jump from the wires to the cable unless the cable was within less than half an inch of the wires.
We think this statement of the evidence raised against appellant the issue of negligence now under discussion. That appellant could have insulated the wires in question is shown by the fact that it insulated its wires in other sections of the town of Kilgore and that other companies under similar conditions and circumstances insulated their wires. Appellant knew that derricks were dismantled by pulling them down and, knowing this fact, installed its wires in an uninsulated condition near the derrick, without giving any warning to the workmen of their character and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Walters
...So.2d 144, 44 A.L.R.2d 1191; Fairbairn v. American River Electric Co. (1918), 179 Cal. 157, 175 P. 637; Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. Hutchins (1934 Tex.Civ.App.), 68 S.W.2d 1085. It is next argued on behalf of the Power Company that the Company's 13.8 K.V. power line was built in Febr......
-
Justiss v. Naquin
...91 S. W.2d 391, error dismissed; Wells v. Henderson, Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 683, error refused; Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. Hutchins, Tex.Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 1085, error dismissed; Ochoa v. Winerich, 127 Tex. 542, 94 S.W.2d 416; Rio Grande E. P. & S. F. R. Co., v. Dupree, Tex.Com. A......
-
Walker v. Texas Elec. Service Co.
...West Texas Utilities Co. v . Renner, 53 S.W.2d 451 (Tex.Com.App., 1932, no writ hist.); and Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. Hutchins, 68 S.W.2d 1085 (Beaumont Civ.App., 1934, dism.). See also American General Ins. Co. v. Southwestern Gas & Elec. Co., 115 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. Ct. of App., 1......
-
Texas Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Lovejoy
...closed. The question, therefore, necessarily could only be raised in the motion for new trial. The case of Southwestern Gas & Elec. Co. v. Hutchins, Tex.Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 1085, is believed to be distinguishable upon the same ground as the Dupree The next ground of error relied upon involv......