Williams v. Anniston Electric & Gas Co.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1909
• Citation: 164 Ala. 84,51 So. 385
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. ANNISTON ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

51 So. 385

164 Ala. 84

WILLIAMS v. ANNISTON ELECTRIC & GAS CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 16, 1909

Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thomas W. Coleman, Judge.

Action by Wesley Williams, as administrator, against the Anniston Electric & Gas Company, for damages for the death of his intestate. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

The charges refused to the plaintiff, declared to exact too high a degree of care, are illustrated by the following charge "(3) The court charges the jury that the law requires persons or corporations maintaining and operating wires over which deadly currents of electricity are conducted to exercise the highest skill and utmost care in regard to same at points where persons or employés are liable to come in contact with such wires, and at such points perfect insulation and protection is required by law."

Charges illustrating the other matter discussed in the opinion are illustrated as follows: "(4) The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that Willie Williams was killed by coming in contact with an electric current conveyed along the wires of defendant, and that he was at a place where his duties required him to be, this would be prima facie evidence of defective insulation and of the negligence of the company maintaining the wires."

The following charges were given at the instance of the defendant:

(A) "The court charges the jury that, unless there was danger or reason to believe that there was danger in using the lamp or fan in the drum of the boiler, there was no duty on the defendant to warn Willie Williams."

(B) "The court charges the jury that the law under which this suit was instituted applies to all persons who employ labor, and is as applicable to farmers, merchants, and mechanics, as to corporations."

(C) "The court charges the jury that mere knowledge of the defect, if there was a defect, does not constitute negligence."

(H) "The court charges the jury that they cannot find the issues in favor of the plaintiff, on account of the defect in the wires connected with the lamp or fan used in the boiler if there was such defect, unless such defect arose from or had not been discovered by reason of the negligence of the defendant, or of the person intrusted by the defendant with the duty of seeing that the said cord or wire was in proper condition."

(K) "The court charges the jury that, if they are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that there was no danger in the electric lamp or wire supplying the same until the lamp or globe thereof became broken, the defendant would not be negligent, and would not be liable for injuries resulting from the breaking of said lamp until it had had a reasonable opportunity of remedying or repairing the same."

(D) "The court charges the jury that, if Willie Williams came to his death by reason of something which was unexpected and could not reasonably be provided against, the plaintiff cannot recover."

(E) "The court charges the jury that, if plaintiff's intestate came to his death by reason of a mere accident, the plaintiff cannot recover."

(F) "The court charges the jury that the employer does not insure his employés against risks, and risks incidental to the business the employer does not assume, and these risks must be borne by the employé himself."

(G) "The court charges the jury that the statement admitted in evidence as to what H. B. Williams would testify, if present, is entitled to the same consideration by the jury as if the said Williams had testified to such statement on the witness stand in the presence of the jury."

(O) "The court charges the jury that, even if they could be reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiff's intestate came in contact with the wire supplying the electric lamp which he had in his hand and that the electric current from such wire caused his death, but that he would not have been injured by said current but for the breaking of the globe, and that the defendant had not had an opportunity of repairing said lamp after the same had been broken, the defendant would not be liable in this accident under the second count of the complaint."

(P) Same as O, as applied to the fourth count.

(Q) Same as O, as applied to the third count.

(U) "The court charges the jury" etc., same as O, as applied to the fifth count.

Willett & Willett, for appellant.

Knox, Acker & Blackmon, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

The relation of master and servant existed, at the time of intestate's death, between intestate and defendant (appellee). Intestate was a youth 18 years of age, had lived many years in the city of Anniston, had attended Payne's University at Selma, and for ought that appears was ordinarily intelligent for his years. It was testified, by his father, that intestate had had no "experience in working around electric plants before this." Intestate was engaged, just previous to his death, in helping a boiler maker "roll flues." The place of service was inside the boiler. It was dark and hot there, and the defendant had arranged an incandescent electric light and an electric fan for use therein. Two wires transmitted the electric current, respectively, to the light and to the fan. While being used, or at least inside the boiler, the bulb was broken. The intestate seems to have started out of the manhole of the boiler, holding the socket part of the fixture, to which the cord was attached, in his hand. He was crawling, as it were, and in so doing crossed or was over the wire conveying electric current to the fan. At this point, as shown by some of the testimony, he was heard to moan or holloa, and was seen to sink down, or his supporting arm to give way. There was testimony tending to show that there were burned or seared spots or places on his arm and forehead or cheek, and other testimony tending to show that these spots were made from electrical contact, and Dr. Kelly testified that, in his opinion, the deceased came to his death from that cause.

The defendant's theory seems to have been that death ensued from heart failure, superinduced by overheating of one not inured to such labors, and to such labors in so close a place as was the boiler. Plaintiff opposed this by testimony tending to show intestate to have been sound in body. Dr. Brothers testified, for defendant, that sudden death may result from heart trouble, apoplexy, etc., among other causes; and that it was entirely possible for a weak heart to enhance the danger of sudden dissolution of one circumstanced and engaged as just indicated. There was no evidence, and no reasonable inference possible of drawal therefrom that intestate had a weak heart. He died, as stated, and the main issues of fact on the trial to be and that were tried by the jury were, first, whether death found its proximate cause in contact with an electric wire, or to natural causes; second, if due to electrical contact, whether negligence, for which the defendant was accountable, infected the cause. The jury's conclusion on the facts exonerated the defendant.

As we gather it from the...