Strattner v. Wilmington City Electric Co.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1901
• Court: Delaware Superior Court
• Parties: FREDERICK STRATTNER, an infant, by his next friend, SARAH A. STRATTNER, v. THE WILMINGTON CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY

50 A. 57

19 Del. 245

FREDERICK STRATTNER, an infant, by his next friend, SARAH A. STRATTNER, v. THE WILMINGTON CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

June 7, 1901

Superior Court, New Castle County, May Term, 1901.

ACTION ON THE CASE (No. 167, May Term, 1900) to recover damages for personal injuries.

The facts appear in the charge of the Court.

Verdict for plaintiff for $ 15,000.

John Weaver (of the Philadelphia bar) and Harry Emmons for plaintiff.

J. H Bloomingston (of the Chicago bar) and James W. Ponder for defendant.

LORE C. J., and SPRUANCE and BOYCE, J. J. sitting.

OPINION

LORE, C. J., charging the jury:

Gentlemen of the jury:--The claim in this case is for damages for personal injuries, alleged by the plaintiff to have been received by reason of the negligence of the defendant company.

It is not disputed that on October 18, 1899, the day of the accident, that the plaintiff, then a boy of about seventeen years of age, was in the employ of the defendant company, learning the business of electrical engineering; that on that day the plaintiff was operating switches and taking the registering therefrom of the electric current generated by the company's plant in this city; that he received an electric shock by taking hold of the handles of the right-hand switch and also of the left-hand switch at the same time, thus forming an electric circuit; that by means of such shock he lost both arms, which were so burned that they had to be amputated--one above, the other below, the elbow.

The plaintiff claims that the switches were not properly insulated; that he did not know and was not instructed by the defendant company that there was danger in taking hold of the handles of both switches at the same time.

The defendant, on the other hand, claims that the switches were properly insulated; that the plaintiff was properly instructed by it, and that he knew and assumed the risk.

That the relation of master and servant subsisted between the defendant and the plaintiff, at the time of the accident, is not disputed.

It was therefore the duty of the defendant to provide for the plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work in, and reasonably safe machinery and appliances with which to work in the prosecution of his employment. Such place, machinery and appliances need not have been the latest, the most improved, or the best; but they must have been so adapted to and adequate for the purposes for which they were used to be reasonably safe under all the conditions of the employment.

This was a primary duty of the master, and if the defendant failed to perform it, and the injuries complained of by the plaintiff resulted from that cause alone, he would be entitled to recover.

A servant assumes all the ordinary and apparent risks of his employment.

A master, as such, is not an insurer of the safety of his servant.

It is the duty of the master to give...