Yates v. Southwestern Brush Electric Light and Power Company
| Decision Date | 01 May 1888 |
| Docket Number | 10,105 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHN B. YATES v. SOUTHWESTERN BRUSH ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY |
APPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans. Tissot, J.
Braughn Buck, Dinkelspiel & Hart, for Plaintiff and Appellee.
E. M Hudson, for defendant and Appellant.
The plaintiff seeks to recover $ 3000 damages from the defendant company, on account of certain injuries he received while in the performance of duty in the building and property of the New Orleans National Bank, situated corner of Camp and Common streets, in the city of New Orleans -- he being a member of Boylan & Farrell's police force at the time. The averments of his petition are, that the accident of which he complains took place on the morning of the 26th of February, 1887, at the hour of 6 o'clock a.m., and that it was occasioned by the explosion of a metal pipe, through which an electric wire passed conveying electricity into the building for the purposes of incandescent lighting, and by the force of the explosion fragments of the pipe were driven violently against his head, just behind the right ear, whereby he was felled to the floor, stunned and senseless for a time, and from which he received serious and permanent injury.
The defendant's answer was a general denial. The case was tried by a jury, who found for the plaintiff $ 2500, and the defendant has appealed.
From the record we have gleaned the following facts in regard to the manner in which the accident occurred, the causes which superinduced it, and the injuries the plaintiff sustained by it.
It appears that on the morning in question the plaintiff went on duty at the bank at 5 A.M., and about an hour afterwards his attention was arrested by an electrical illumination which appeared over the door which opens into the president's room, and which is situated on the Camp street side of the building, facing Common street. He was standing about midway of the floor and between this room and the desk of the paying teller. A moment afterwards a blaze was discovered in the wood work over the desk of the paying teller, which he hastened to extinguish, and while thus engaged the brass pipe, through which the electric wire connected with the electro lear, exploded, and a blow was inflicted on his head and one on his back, which was turned towards the desk.
The shock was attended with a sound like that of the firing of a pistol, and the illumination it produced had the appearance of rockets or fireworks, and it continued, at intervals, for fifteen or twenty seconds.
The chandelier in the paying teller's apartment, into which the electric wire was introduced, was, at the time of the explosion, about twelve inches from his head.
This wire was insulated and passed through a metal pipe, and it was exploded, and the pipe also, by means of an usual exertion of electric force.
This was occasioned by a connection that was formed outside of the bank, on some part of the pole-line, with a wire carrying a higher tension of electricity than that which fed the incandescent lamps within the bank -- that is to say, there was a contact on the outside of the bank of the wire which supplied the incandescent light inside with a wire carrying an arc current of high tension outside. The effect of this contact was to pass the arc current into the bank, and, this current being beyond its capacity, an electrical explosion was produced, and the heat fused the metal and bursted the pipe.
In every electrical installation there is, necessarily, a safety fuse or safety catch, which is a mechanical contrivance that interpolates into the line of electric conductors a small piece of lead wire, the effect of which is that when an abnormal amount of electricity flows over the wire of the circuit it becomes melted by the excessive heat engendered and the current is broken.
These devices are intended to secure additional safety to persons using incandescent lights.
The one over the desk of the paying teller had, in this instance, lost its cover and its internal part was charred and defaced. The metal was melted and the wood work burned. It had operated, but not in the right way. There were evidences of burning on the electro lear as well as the fuse-catch.
There is no reasonable doubt of the fact that the proximate cause of the accident was the insufficiency of fuse-catches, either in number or capacity, to break the circuit and cut off the flow of electricity from an arc wire on the outside of the bank.
The brass tube containing the insulated wire was of about one-twentieth of an inch in thickness and one-fourth of an inch in diameter, and the fragments of it which inflicted the wound on the plaintiff's head were about two and one-half inches in length. Their edges were jagged and rough, and the metal was tarnished and discolored.
The tension of an arc current of electricity passing through a tube of such dimensions was quite sufficient to have exploded it and send the fragments against the plaintiff's head with sufficient violence to have produced the injuries he received.
The immediate effect of an arc current of the voltage this one appeared to have, when exercised upon an individual, would be that of a heavy blow, and might cause, at least, temporary insensibility.
From the blow inflicted there was a knot raised on plaintiff's head, which is described by one witness as being of the size of a hen's egg. He was stunned and felled to the floor and rendered insensible for a time. He became quite sick from the effects of it, and vomited considerably. He became, on that account, unfitted for duty, his hearing in his right ear being seriously impaired.
Since the happening of the accident, attacks, similar to those described, have occurred frequently, though at irregular intervals, and last three or four hours at a time; and the plaintiff states that he experiences from them a great pressure on the right side of his head, above and behind his right ear, coupled with intense pain and dizziness.
One of his medical attendants states that, upon making an examination of the plaintiff's ear, he discovered tinnitus -- i.e., a buzzing or humming in the ear -- and the ear-drum congested, which was likely to produce inflammation of the ear-drum and impair the hearing.
Having heard the plaintiff's testimony, he gave it as his professional opinion that, while the plaintiff may be comparatively free from trouble at times, his affliction will continue during life time.
Since the accident the plaintiff has lost considerably in flesh, and has not been able to perform much work; and, indeed, it was stated by his counsel in argument, and not disavowed by counsel of the defendant company, that on account of his being unable to perform satisfactory service he had been discharged from employment at the bank.
At the date of this occurrence he was about fifty-two...
To continue reading
Request your trial