Stansbury v. Mayor and Councilmen of Morgan City

• Decision Date: 07 November 1955
• Docket Number: No. 42482,42482
• Citation: 84 So.2d 445,228 La. 880
• Parties: Margaret Cram STANSBURY, Merlin C. Stansbury, Jr. and Deborah Mary Stansbury v. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEN OF MORGAN CITY, Louisiana, and Mrs. Luke Grizzaffi, widow of Luke Grizzaffi.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 445

84 So.2d 445

228 La. 880

Margaret Cram STANSBURY, Merlin C. Stansbury, Jr. and Deborah Mary Stansbury v.MAYOR AND COUNCILMEN OF MORGAN CITY, Louisiana, and Mrs Luke Grizzaffi, widow of Luke Grizzaffi.

No. 42482.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 7, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1955.

Blanchard & Blanchard, C. A. Blanchard, Farrell A. Blanchard, Donaldsonville, for relator and plaintiff.

Leonard C. Wise, Morgan City, for defendants and appellees.

PONDER, Justice.

This Court granted writs to review a judgment of the Court of Appeal, see80 So.2d 159, refusing damages to the plaintiff and her minor children for the death of her husband who was electrocuted when his body came in contact with uninsulated wires while he was engaged in painting the house of Mrs. Luke Grizzaffi.It is the allegation of the plaintiff that the mayor and councilmen of Morgan City, as owners and operators of the electric line system in that city, were negligent in failing to exercise proper supervision in keeping the wires in repair.

The decedent was found dead at the foot of the ladder he was using to paint the upper front portion of the house and there were no eyewitnesses to the accident.Death was due to contact with wires which were uninsulated and were attached to the house at the eave some ten feet from the ground.It was established by competent testimony that the wires were insulated when installed but the covering or insulation had deteriorated due to weather and exposure.

Expert testimony was introduced to show that the purpose of insulation on the wires is only for the purpose of installation in that it facilitates the handling of the wire itself and that after the wire is installed there is no necessity for insulation as a protection.This conclusion was rejected by this Court in the cases of Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co., 111 La. 522, 35 So. 731, 64 L.R.A. 101andPotts v. Shreveport Belt Ry. Co., 110 La. 1, 34 So. 103.It was concluded in those cases that insulation was to afford protection to life contrary to expert testimony similar to that introduced herein.

In denying recovery the Court of Appeal found the case of Calton v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 222 La. 1063, 64 So.2d 432 controlling in holding the defendant not guilty of negligence.In this the Court of Appeal committed error.In that casethis Court pointed out that the high power lines constructed by the defendant company complied with all recognized standards of electrical construction, particularly those recommended by the Bureau of Standards of the United States Department of Commerce; and that the lines were at a proper height to safeguard against a contingency which could reasonably be foreseen or expected.That situation is not present here because the wires in question were so situated (ten feet above the ground, attached to the outside of the house) that it should have been obvious to the defendants that from time to time repairs would have to be made and workmen would be in close proximity to the wire.

The court was in error in concluding that the condition of the wires was not in violation of law.LSA-R.S. 40:1603 provides that all electrical wiring must be in compliance with the National Electrical Code which stipulates that in situations of this kind wires must have an insulation covering to prevent any detrimental leakage of current to adjacent conductors, objects, or the ground.

It was decided by this Court in the much cited case of Potts v. Shreveport Belt Ry. Co., 110 La. 1, 34 So. 103, 98 Am.St.Rep. 452 that even in the absence of statutory law a company maintaining electrical wires over which a high voltage of electricity is conveyed, rendering them highly dangerous to others, is under the duty of using the necessary care and prudence, at places where others may have the right to go either for work or pleasure, to prevent injury; that such company carries the duty of keeping its wires perfectly insulated; and it must exercise the utmost care to maintain them in this condition at such places.This rule has been followed in the following cases: Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co., 111 La. 522, 35 So. 731, 64 L.R.A. 101, 100 Am.St.Rep. 505;Babin v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, 2 La.App. 517;Ledet v. Lockport Power & Light Co., Inc., 15 La.App. 426, 132 So. 272;Bynum v. City of Monroe, La.App., 171 So. 116;Webb v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., La.App., 199 So. 451;Mays v. Southwestern Gas & Electric Co., 174 La. 368, 140 So. 826;Hughes v. Southwestern Gas & Electric Co., 175 La. 336, 143 So. 281.Likewise, in the following cases the electric company was found negligent for failure to insulate where such was specifically provided for by city ordinance: Haight v. New Orleans Public Service Co., 2 La.App. 405;Clements v. Louisiana Electric Light Co., 44 La.Ann. 692, 696, 11 So. 51, 16 L.R.A. 43;Moren v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 125 La. 944, 52 So. 106.And in the case of Layne v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., La.App., 161 So. 29the plaintiff was allowed to recover when he was injured by contact with wires connected to a house while he was engaged in repairing a roof because the defendant company was negligent in failing to insulate the wire in violation of the National Electrical Code.

Hence the jurisprudence of...