Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Arntson
| Decision Date | 06 November 1907 |
| Docket Number | 2,557. |
| Parties | UNION LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO. v. ARNTSON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
A. W Cupler (Ed. Pierce and B. G. Tenneson, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Seth W Richardson (William H. Barnett and B. D. Townsend, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before VAN DEVANTER and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and RINER, District judge.
Sarah Arntson, widow of Gunder Arntson, sued the Union Light, Heat & Power Company to recover damages occasioned by the death of her husband. She recovered judgment below, and the power company brings the case here by writ of error.
Defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying the citizens of Fargo, N.D., with electric current for light and power purposes. One Stone was a customer of the company. His residence was equipped with the requisite fixtures, and the company was supplying it and particularly the basement with electric light. Prior to September 2, 1905, the date of the casualty in question, Arntson, with one Davenport, had been employed by Stone to install a new furnace in his basement. The work had been nearly completed the night before, so that Arntson's services were no longer required there, and he left without taking his working tools away. At about noon of the next day he was directed by his general employer to go and get his tools for use elsewhere. In obedience to that direction, he went into the basement and while there gathering them up received a shock of electricity which resulted in his death. The evidence shows that the shock was occasioned by an excessive current, of electricity which had been negligently allowed by defendant to flow into the basement. The transformer which reduced the primary current of large voltage to one suitable for lighting purposes was out of order, and permitted the deadly primary current to flow over the latter. Defendant was notified of the trouble. It was its duty to act promptly, and immediately cut off the current until the defect could be cured and danger averted. This is not denied by defendant. Negligence is practically conceded, but defendant challenges plaintiff's judgment on the grounds (1) that in the circumstances disclosed by the proof it owed no duty to Arntson, and therefore could not be guilty of any breach of duty; (2) that notwithstanding defendant's negligence in permitting the current of deadly voltage to enter the basement Stone's possession of the fixtures in the basement and his duty in relation to them interposed an efficient and proximate human agency between defendant's negligence and Arntson's injury and caused the latter (3) that Arntson was guilty of contributory negligence which precludes recovery. We think all these contentions are untenable.
1. Defendant owed a duty to its patron Stone to exercise a proper degree of care to prevent a dangerous current of electricity from entering his dwelling. This duty on the plainest principles of law and common sense extended to his family, his servants, his employes, and others who might rightfully be upon his premises. The current was a subtile and dangerous agent, and when uncontrolled was such as might be fatal to any occupant of a building in which it might be installed. This the defendant must have known, and it must have known what everybody else knows, that servants, artisans, and workmen of one kind or another are liable at any time to be within the building in the customary and proper discharge of duty. The evidence conclusively shows that Arntson was such a workman. He had been employed in performing a usual and customary duty for Stone, renewing his heating apparatus and making the house ready for the approaching winter. Having finished his part of the work, he returned to gather up his tools for use elsewhere. He was required to go into the basement where he had used them and left them. That the defendant should have fairly and reasonably anticipated that the basement which it had equipped with wires and lamps for lighting purposes would be occupied and used as it was and that Stone's agents, servants, and employes might from time to time be there is not debatable, and that defendant owed a duty to exercise a proper degree of care for their safety, is beyond question. If authority were necessary to sustain so plain a proposition, reference might be made to 1 Thompson on Negligence, Sec. 801 et seq., and to the cases there cited.
2. Stone's ownership and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackburn v. Southwest Missouri Railroad Company
... ... R. A., ... N. S. 448; Dickson v. Kewanee Electric Light & Motor ... Co., 53 Ill.App. 379; Telephone Co. v ... St. Rep. 580, 12 N. Dak. 585; Electric Light & Power Co ... v. Bloomquist, 185 F. 615; Williams v. Railway ... Media El. L., H. & P. Co. (Pa.), 57 ... A. 833; Union L., H. & P. Co. v. Arntson, 157 F ... 540; Palmer v ... ...
-
Reynolds v. Iowa Southern Utilities Co.
...Co. v. Healy et ux., 65 Kan. 798, 70 P. 884; McKiddy v. Des Moines Electric Co., 202 Iowa, 225, 206 N. W. 815; Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Arntson (C. C. A.) 157 F. 540. The following are cases arising out of injuries to children playing in trees under circumstances somewhat similar to......
-
Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. v. Brown
...defects. Perhaps as strong a language on this subject as is to be found anywhere is the language of this court in Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Arntson, 157 F. 540, 541, 542: "Defendant owed a duty to its patron, Stone, to exercise a proper degree of care to prevent a dangerous current o......
-
Finch v. City of Ottawa
... ... 300] ... and was using to operate a municipal light and power plant in ... the city, to escape from its ... 391, 398, 399, 15 Sup.Ct. 464, 39 L.Ed. 464; ... Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Arntson, 157 F ... 540-541, 87 ... ...