Turner v. Southern Power Co

• Decision Date: 20 December 1910
• Citation: 69 S.E. 767,154 N.C. 131
• Parties: TURNER v. SOUTHERN POWER CO. et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

69 S.E. 767

154 N.C. 131

TURNER

v.SOUTHERN POWER CO. et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 20, 1910.

1. Electricity (§§ 11, 13^*)—Providing Light and Power—Duties of Service Corporation.

Where an electric light and power company operating under a quasi public charter contracted to furnish electricity for light or power, its obligation as to the amount to be supplied must be determined according to the general principles of contract, which, as a rule, are absolute, but its duties as to the methods and appliances for the proper use and delivery of electricity, in the absence of specific stipulations concerning them, should be determined under the general principles of the law of negligence.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Electricity, Dec. Dig. §§ 11, 13.*]

2. Electricity (§ 13*)—Negligence—Transfer of Obligation.

A corporation furnishing electricity for heat, light, or power, under privileges conferred by the lawmaking power, may not stipulate against negligence, nor transfer its obligations to others without legislative authority.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Electricity, Dec. Dig. § 13, *]

3. Electricity (§ 14*)—Care Required.

A corporation furnishing electricity for heat, light, and power owes to its patrons the duty to protect them from injury by exercising the highest skill, the most consummate care and caution, and the utmost diligence and foresight in constructing, maintaining, and inspecting its plant and appliances obtainable, consistent with the practical operation thereof.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Electricity, Cent. Dig. § 7; Dec. Dig. § 14.*]

4. Negligence (§ 121*)—Res Ipsa Loquitur.

When a thing which causes injury is shown to be under defendant's management, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by defendant, that the accident arose from its want of care.

[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. §§ 217-220; Dec. Dig. § 121.*]

5. Electricity (§ 19*)—Injuries to Consumer — Negligence — Evidence—Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Plaintiff entered his store, which was lighted by electricity, took hold of a lamp suspended from the ceiling by a cord to turn on the light in the ordinary manner, when his hand was caught and held by the current, rendering him temporarily unconscious, severely burning his hand, and causing permanent injury. The electricity was conveyed to the building by defendant companies under a contract to provide a certain number of lamps at a specified power, the bulb of the particular lamp having been bought from defendants a short time before. There was also evidence that the appliances within the building procured from others were examined by an expert the day after the injury and found in proper condi-tion, and that the amount of electricity at the voltage contracted for would not injure a person in plaintiff's position when injured under conditions in the building which then and usually obtained. Defendants also examined the appliances the succeeding day and found that the proper amount of electricity was being carried through the wires. Held, that such facts were sufficient to make a prima facie case of defendants' negligence under the doctrine res ipsa loquitur.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Electricity, Dec. Dig. § 19.^2-*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; E. B. Jones, Judge.

Action by R. B. Turner against the Southern Power Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Civil action to recover damages for injury, caused by alleged negligence on the part of defendants, tried before his honor E. B. Jones, judge, and a jury, at January term, 1910, of the superior court of Mecklenburg county. It was shown at the trial that on December 25, 1908, plaintiff entered his store at some time in the early evening to make a sale to some one, and as he caught hold of the electric lamp, suspended from the ceiling by a cord, to turn on the light, in the ordinary and usual way, his hand was caught and held by the current, rendering him, for a time, unconscious, severely burning his hand, and causing permanent injury to same; that the electricity was conveyed to the building by defendant companies, under a contract to furnish same for a given number of lamps, at the ordinary voltage, stated to be, for that purpose, 110 volts, and that the appliances within the building for distributing the light to the different lamps was supplied by a different company, acting independently of defendants except the bulb for this particular lamp which had been bought from defendants a short time before. There was evidence, on the part of plaintiff, tending to show that the appliances, within the building, procured from other persons, were examined by an expert the day after the injury and found to be in good shape, and that on the position of plaintiff, when injured, and under conditions in the building which then and usually obtained, the amount of electricity and at the voltage contracted for would not produce the effects which were shown to have resulted; that plaintiff took hold of bulb, in this instance, as he had been accustomed to do since the light had been installed, and same had never caused any bad effects before or given indications that anything was wrong. There was evidence, on the part of the defendants, tending to show that they have supplied electricity under the contract to the amount and voltage stated, and conveyed the same to the building as claimed; that they had installed a meter and switch with the appliances required for properly protecting the house; that no of ficial report of the occurrence had been made directly to the office, but that, having noted an account of it in the morning paper, the appliances referred to for supplying the electricity were examined and tested by their experts on the afternoon of the day succeeding the occurrence, and their appliances, the ampere plugs, etc., for controlling the volume and voltage showed to be in good order, and also the charts connected with the transformer gave indication that the proper amount of electricity had been distributed, etc. Speaking of this particular implement and its use and purposes and the evidence afforded by these charts, W. W. Hanks, a witness for defendants, testified: "These are registered on an automatic instrument that shows, in order to get an excessive voltage at the point Mr. Turner came in contact with, it would have to be in contact with some other source of higher voltage. The system was all right, and it would have to be from some foreign wire or from a primary wire not on the system." There was further some evidence offered by defendants to the effect that at a point near where this particular light was suspended from the ceiling, the floor had been saturated with the brine from a pile of meat, and that by standing on that point the voltage at 110 might be accelerated or increased so as to import danger to one handling an exposed wire supplying electricity for the lamp, etc. The cause was tried on the ordinary issues as for negligent injury, and responsibility of defendants was determined under the principles applicable to demands of that nature. The court imposed throughout on plaintiff the burden of the issue as to defendants' negligence, and, under several prayers for instructions offered by defendants, he charged the jury that, if the injury was caused by reason of defective socket or other appliances in the building, the defendants would not be liable, and in effect excluded every cause or feature of responsibility except that which might arise from an excess of voltage negligently conveyed or allowed to enter into the building by reason of the defective appliances of defendants. On the standard of care the court charged the jury, among other things "that, while the law does not regard an electric light company an insurer against injury, such a company owes to its patrons the duty to protect them from injury, by exercising the highest skill, most consummate care and caution, and the utmost diligence and foresight in the construction, maintenance, and inspection of its plant and appliances obtainable, consistent with the practical operation of its plant." So it is something more, under the law, as the court understands it, than ordinary care; it is the highest care. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants excepted and appealed.

Osborne, Lucas & Cocke, for appellants.

Burwell & Cansler and R. S. Hutchinson, for appellee.

HOKE, J. (after stating the facts as above). We are of opinion that this cause has been tried on correct principles and that no reversible error appears of record. Where an electric light and power company, operating under a quasi public charter, enters into an ordinary contract to furnish electricity for a given number of lights or for a given amount of power, the obligation as to the amount of power or light to be supplied must be construed and determined according to the general principles of contract, which, as a rule, are absolute, but, in reference to the duties incumbent on the vendor or company, by reason of the dangerous nature of electricity and as to the methods and appliances for its proper use and delivery, these, in the absence of specific stipulations concerning them, should be considered as arising, in...