Ziehn v. United Elec. Light & Power Co. of Baltimore (State Report Title: Ziehm v. United Electric Light & Power Co. of Baltimore)
| Decision Date | 16 June 1906 |
| Citation | 64 A. 61,104 Md. 48 |
| Parties | ZIEHN v. UNITED ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. OF BALTIMORE. [*] |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Dan'l. Giraud Wright, Judge.
Action by Robert T. Ziehn against the United Electric Light & Power Company of Baltimore. From a judgment in favor of defendant plaintiff appeals. Reversed. New trial ordered.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRISCOE, BOYD, PAGE, SCHMUCKER PEARCE, JONES, and BURKE, JJ.
Thomas G. Hayes, for appellant.
George Dobbin Penniman and C. Baker Clotworthy, for appellee.
This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the alleged negligence of the defendant the United Electric Light & Power Company of Baltimore.
The declaration contains four counts. The first three charge negligence in the construction and maintenance of certain electric wires operated by the company in the town of Pikesville, near the Reisterstown road, in Baltimore county. The fourth charges negligence in permitting these wires to be and remain in a dangerous condition, exposed to contact with persons lawfully upon a telephone pole near its wires. The court below at the conclusion of the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff instructed the jury, that according to the undisputed evidence in the case, the plaintiff directly contributed by his own negligence to the injuries he received. The plaintiff excepted to the granting of this prayer, and the questions for our consideration are presented, on this exception and on rulings of the court, as to the admissibility of testimony, during the trial. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was employed by the Maryland Telephone Company as a lineman to test the line and to answer what is known as "trouble calls" on the line. On July 31, 1902, he received a call and notice, to go to Pikesville to locate and ascertain "a trouble" on the line. When he reached the place of the accident he found it necessary in order to locate the trouble to ascend what is called "the distributing pole," with a cable box at the top. He ascended by means of iron spikes driven on the side of the pole, as steps, from the ground to the cable box, a distance of 50 feet. In going up he had to pass three electric wires of the appellee in close proximity to the pole, between the ground and the cable box. The first wire was about 3 inches from the pole; the second about 25 inches and the third about 50 inches. He ascended the pole without injury between the first and second wires and located the trouble at the cable box. In descending, his left hand came in contact with one of the wires, charged with 2,080 volts of electricity. He became unconscious and fell a distance of 20 feet to the ground, and was injured. He testified: There was evidence that the appellee's wires were not properly placed, and the wire, which struck the appellant's hand, as he descended the pole, was not properly insulated.
The main question, presented by the exception to the prayer, is were the facts and circumstances of the case so patent and plain as to have authorized the court in pronouncing them contributory negligence in law and in withdrawing the case from the consideration of the jury? The law controlling this class of cases has been settled by numerous decisions of this court. It is this, where the facts are undisputed or where but one reasonable inference can be drawn from them, the question is one of law for the court; but where the facts are left by the evidence in dispute or where fair minds might draw different conclusions, the case should go to the jury. The plaintiff, in this case, was in the exercise of a duty that required him to ascend and descend the distributing pole, and the appellee owed him a clear, legal duty to have its wires...
To continue reading
Request your trial