Walters v. Denver Consol. Elec. Light Co.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1898
• Citation: 12 Colo.App. 145,54 P. 960
• Parties: WALTERS v. DENVER CONSOL. ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. (two cases).
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

54 P. 960

12 Colo.App. 145

WALTERS v. DENVER CONSOL. ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. (two cases).

Court of Appeals of Colorado

October 10, 1898

Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county.

Actions by Clifton W. Walters and Levina E. Walters against the Denver Consolidated Electric Light Company for injuries caused by an uninsulated wire. From orders dismissing the complaints, the plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Wells Taylor & Taylor and R.T. McNeal, for appellants.

Wolcott & Vaile and William W. Field, for appellee.

THOMSON P.J.

Two cases are here submitted to us for decision. They are both against the same defendant, and, for the most part, involve the same questions. In each case, when it came on for trial the defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence for the plaintiff, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The objections were sustained, judgments entered for the defendant, and appeals prosecuted by the plaintiffs. The averments of the complaints, therefore, constitute the only subject for discussion in this opinion.

The complaint of the plaintiff Clifton Wood Walters set forth that the defendant was engaged in the operation of machinery and apparatus for producing electricity, and supplying it to dwelling houses in the city of Denver; that it had extended its wires to the house of Charles W. Walters, the father of the plaintiff, for the purpose of supplying light to that house; that it had attached to the house, near to and directly under the window, an electric device, called a converter, and near to and above the converter, and directly under the window, had placed two iron supports to hold glass insulators, to which were attached wires, connecting with the house, and conveying the electric current for furnishing light to the house; that the defendant had carelessly suffered the wires to become uncovered and uninsulated; that the plaintiff, a child 12 years of age, who was residing with his father, upon looking out of the window, and seeing that one of the insulators had been removed from its iron support and knowing nothing of the danger incident to his coming in contact with the wires attached to the insulator, seized hold of the insulator for the purpose of replacing it upon its support, and received a charge of electricity from the naked wire which his hands touched in seizing the insulator, resulting in serious and permanent injury to him. The objections to this complaint, stated in their logical order, are: First, that the facts alleged do not constitute negligence on the part of the defendant, within the contemplation of the law; second, that the complaint shows that the proximate cause of the injury was the act of the plaintiff in seizing the insulator, and not the exposed condition of the wire; and, third, that it appears upon the face of the complaint that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence contributing to his injury.

1. It is argued that there was no statute, ordinance, or other express law which required the defendant to equip all of its wires with insulating covers, and that, therefore, taking into consideration the situation of this exposed wire, no duty rested upon the defendant to keep it insulated. We may concede that at places where there is no apparent possibility of injury ensuing from electric wires it would not be negligence to leave them uncovered, and that no duty to keep them insulated would exist, unless it was imposed by some express law. But by this concession the question whether consistently with the degree of care exacted in the management of an agency so dangerous as electricity, it was or was not the duty of the defendant to have its wires insulated at the particular place where this injury occurred, is by no means disposed of. The wire in question was affixed to the outside of the wall of the house of the plaintiff's father, directly under one of the windows, and within the reach of persons looking out of the window. The plaintiff was a child, living with his father, and had the right to be in the house, and at the window. Upon seeing one of the insulators out of its proper place, and without knowledge or apprehension of the danger attendant upon his act, he undertook to replace the insulator, and so received an electric charge from the naked wire. The insulator was a harmless looking object. There was nothing to give notice of the deadly force hidden in the wire. The accident was one liable, and which the defendant must have known was liable, to happen at any dwelling to which electric appliances were similarly affixed, and in which there were children, or persons ignorant of...