Troidle v. Adirondack Power & Light Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1930 |
| Citation | 252 N.Y. 483,169 N.E. 654 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | TROIDLE v. ADIRONDACK POWER & LIGHT CORPORATION. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Benno G. Troidle against the Adirondack Power & Light Corporation. Judgment of Trial Term entered upon the verdict of a jury in plaintiff's favor was affirmed by the Appellate Division (225 App. Div. 444, 233 N. Y. S. 545), and defendant appeals.
Judgments of Appellate Division and Trial Term reversed, and complaint dismissed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third department.
Charles B. Sullivan and Neile F. Towner, both of Albany, for appellant.
Henry Hirschfeld, and Edward J. Halter, both of Albany, for respondent.
The plaintiff was the lessee of a small parcel of land upon the easterly portion of which there stood a dwelling house, at the west of which, about 75 feet therefrom, there was a garage. The defendant maintained an electric light pole upon the lot, near its southerly border, from which its transmission lines, passing between the garage and the house, extended northerly to a pole maintained by it upon a parcel of land which bounded the plaintiff on the north. Two sets of wires were maintained by the defendant; one set, elevated 20 feet above the ground, carrying a primary current of 2,300 volts, and another set, 17 1/2 feet above the ground, carrying a secondary current of 110 volts. The poles had been erected, and the wires stretched, pursuant to authority obtained from the owner of the lot, and were maintained by the defendant in the exercise of a legal right. Both sets of wires were insulated with a weather-proof covering ordinarily employed in a like situation. To the east and west of these lines of wire the plaintiff had erected two poles each of which was 57 feet in height. They were 125 feet apart and were designed to carry an aerial wire for a radio set to be installed in the dwelling house upon the premises which was occupied by the plaintiff. When the aerial was in position it would cross the defendant's wires at about a right angle and at an elevation above them of 20 feet. The defendant's wires were so located that no hazard was created, in the course of an ordinary use, either for those occupying the buildings on the lot or for those pursuing occupations of pleasure or business without the buildings.
On a certain day the plaintiff prepared to re-erect the aerial wire, which had been removed for the winter season, in order to connect up his radio set at the dwelling house. At each end of a metal wire 100 feet long, intended to be used as an aerial, he fastened porcelain insulators, 3 to 4 inches in length and 1 inch in thickness. To each insulator he hitched a sash cord about 15 feet in length, and to the end of the cord, tied to the insulator on the end of the wire designed to be its easterly terminus, fastened a stone somewhat large and heavy. Having thus prepared himself, he took up a position at a point 10 feet to the west of the defendant's lines. He wound the aerial wire into a large coil at his side, took the easterly insulator and the stone in his right hand, and with his left held the sash cord in a coil. Thereupon, he heaved with his right hand, throwing the stone and the insulator, with the cord and wire following, upwards over the primary wires of the defendant, suspended 20 feet above the ground. As the end of the aerial came in contact with the defendant's wires, that part of the aerial which remained upon the ground uncoiled and struck against the plaintiff. As a result, a high voltage current of electricity passed into the plaintiff's body and serious injury was thereby inflicted upon him. The claim is made that the defendant was negligent in not so insulating its wires, and so maintaining the insulating material thereupon, that the dangerous current could not have escaped to the aerial wire.
We think that the defendant owed no duty to this plaintiff so to insulate its wires that, in an extraord ary and perilous situation of his own creation, in which he voluntarily placed himself, he might be immune from harm. Hickok v. Auburn Light, Heat & Power Co., 200 N. Y. 464, 93 N. E. 1113, 1116;Heskell v. Auburn Light, Heat & Power Co., 209 N. Y. 86, 102 N. E. 540, L. R. A. 1915B, 1127;Magee v. New York Tel. Co., 213 N. Y. 232, 107 N. E. 493;Adams v. Bullock, 227 N. Y. 208, 125 N. E. 93. In Hickok v. Auburn Light, Heat & Power Co., supra, the facts considered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caraglio v. Frontier Power Co., 4267.
...Co., 70 Cal.App.2d 415, 161 P.2d 74; Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Wilson, 172 Okl. 540, 45 P.2d 750; Troidle v. Adirondack Power & Light Corp., 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E. 654. 7 Croxton v. Duke Power Co., 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 306; Pascoe v. Southern California Edison Co., 102 Cal.App.2d 254, 227 ......
-
Miner v. Long Island Lighting Co.
...reposition the wire (see, e.g., Collins v. City of New York, 28 N.Y.2d 910, 322 N.Y.S.2d 734, 271 N.E.2d 264; Troidle v. Adirondack Power & Light Corp., 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E. 654; Mikolasko v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 8 A.D.2d 648, 185 N.Y.S.2d 95, mot. for lv. to app. den. 7 N.Y.......
-
Burns v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 6329.
...Public Service Co., 381 Ill. 300, 45 N.E.2d 665; Maggard v. Appalachian Power Co., 111 W.Va. 470, 163 S.E. 27; Troidle v. Adirondack Power & Light Co., 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E. 654; Aljoe v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 281 Pa. 368, 126 A. 759; Stackpole v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 181 ......
-
Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co.
... ... strongly against the defendant, or in the light most ... favorable to the plaintiff. Weinman v. Puget Sound ... 506, 84 A. 967, 42 ... L.R.A., N. S., 713; Troidle v. Adirondack Power & Light ... Corporation, 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E ... ...