Texarkana Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Orr
Decision Date | 09 June 1894 |
Parties | TEXARKANA GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. v. ORR |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court RUFUS D. HEARN, Judge.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This suit was instituted by appellee, administrator of the estate of Ed. Wallace, deceased, against the appellant company, in the Miller circuit court, at its November term, 1891, and the cause was tried at the November term 1892, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $ 20 actual damages and $ 200 punitive damages against the defendant.
ABSTRACT.
The cause of action is fully set forth in the complaint, which is as follows, to-wit:
The answer is substantially a denial of all the material allegations in the complaint.
The evidence in the case is to the effect that, during the night of the 22d day of August 1891, there was an electrical storm in Texarkana, such as was never known in that locality before that time; that at that time the appellant corporation was operating its lamps and wires in that city for the purpose of furnishing lights to its inhabitants; that there was more or less of inexperience in the persons immediately in charge of the operation of the machinery at the "power house;" that there was an apparent want of that extra care and watchfulness on the part of those in control, which the peculiar circumstances seem to have demanded; and that, by reason of the terrific character of the storm, and its effect upon the machinery and wires, there was considerable demoralization among the employees then on duty.
The testimony goes to show that some of the wires were broken and down between 12 o'clock and 2:30 o'clock a. m. of the night in question, while some of the testimony would seem to point to a later hour. At all events no discovery of a "ground" seems to have been made at the "power house" earlier than about 2 o'clock a. m. "By 'ground' is meant any connection between the line and the earth. This connection may be made by the line, or any of its connections, being broken, and the ends coming in contact with a tree or its limbs, or with the pole or roof of a house, or by another wire or rope or string being thrown over the line and resting on the earth. To cause ground by the wire coming in contact with the pole or a tree or the roof of a house, there must be damp. "It was shown by the testimony of experts that it is scarcely possible to ascertain the locality of a "ground" by the application of the most efficient tests, but that these tests are available to ascertain the fact that there is a "ground," and, to some extent, the nature of the "ground."
There is no complaint that proper tests were not applied on the occasion of the storm in question. In fact the object of the application seems to have been attained by the person in charge of the machinery at the "power house," for we find one witness (who seems to have been in a position to testify directly on the subject) testifying as follows: John Thurston testified:
The evidence discloses to us the fact that, while the locality of a "ground" cannot be ascertained by the application of tests at the "power-house," and also that the storm was raging so furiously, and the night was so unfavorable that it may have been asking too much of the employees of the company to hunt up those broken wires until daylight, yet we are informed by the testimony in the case that the accident resulting in the death of plaintiff's intestate occurred some hours after daylight, and at a time when people had begun to appear upon the streets of the city.
Concerning events immediately connected with the accident, it is said in testimony that it was during the thunderstorm, about 5:30 o'clock in the morning, that Ed. Wallace came into the saloon where witness was working, the "Triangle Saloon" just across the street from Smith's drug store. This was about ten minutes before he was killed, and the witness, Jesse Cole, spoke to him about catching hold of the wires that were connected with the main wire and that ran into the saloon. He then had hold of a dead wire, and witness then told him to be careful of those wires. While deceased was at this point, a short time afterwards, a hog had come in contact with live wires on the opposite side of the street and made demonstrations of having received a shock from them, but whether deceased saw this or not witness could not say, further than that he was in a position to have seen it, and witness believed he did, as they were standing together on the sidewalk, in full view. From...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Wade
......light of the foregoing indications, it is accurate to say that the foundation upon which the right to ... The word was used with the same meaning in the punitive damages context. See, e.g., Texarkana Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Orr, 59 Ark. 215, 224, 27 S.W. 66, 68 (1894); Welch v. Durand, 36 ......
-
Missouri & North Arkansas Railroad Company v. Bratton
......414; 3 Elliott, Railroads,. 1253; 66 Ark. 494. . . 3. In. the light of the evidence, deceased was guilty of such. contributory negligence as to preclude recovery. 64 ......
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Craft
-
Gannon v. Laclede Gas Light Company
...... deadly current. Light Co. v. Orr, 59 Ark. 215;. Railroad v. Conery, 33 S.W. 426; Girandi v. Electric Imp. Co., 107 Cal. 126; Ahern v. Oregon T. Co., 24 Ore. 276; Haynes v. Gas Co., 114 N.C. 206; Uggla v. Railroad, 160 Mass. 353;. ......