Imágenes de páginas

dug by the servants of defendant for laying build bydrants, and to employ such persons as water-pipes. He recovered damages to an ex. they deem necessary to perform their duties. tent not held by the trial judge to be beyond They bave power to levy water rates on conthe merits of the case; and, if defendant is sumers on an equitable basis. They can proliable at all, there seems to be nothing in the cure lands by condemnation, where needed, record to show error in holding tbe judgment and, on payment of the damages into the city regular and proper in law, although, as not treasury, may get the title. All materials conuncommon in such cases, the jury gave the tracted for or procured by them are exen:pt plaintiff the benefit of all the disputed facis. from execution. But it is claimed that under the Statutes regu. It may be important, in this connection, to lating i18 powers, and those of the City of consider the legal position of this Board in its Marquette, the defendant cannot be held le- functions. While it is a local corporation, gally responsible for the negligence of its serv. created to serve municipal purposes, it is in ants in an action in tort for damages. Tbat no sense a municipal corporation, within the the individual wrong-doer, if there was one, legal meaning of tbat term. It has been setby whose misconduct plaintiff was hurt, is re- tled in this State that there can be no municsponsible, is not disputed. Whether the cor- ipal corporation that is not the direct repreporation in charge of the public ways is liable sentative of the people of its locality. Atly-Gen. is not before us. The sole question is whether v. Detroit, 58 Mich. 213; Allor v. Wayne Co. tbis corporation, which is created to subserve Auditors, 43 Mich. 76; People v. Ilurlbut, 24 certain important municipal purposes, has Mich. 44; Metropolitan Police Board v. Wayno been made responsible by law for such acci- Co. Auditors, 68 Mich. 576, 13 West. Rep. 487; dents, when, `if not incorporated, it is not People v Detroit, 28 Mich. 228; People v. Deshown that it would be, is the only matter for troit, 29 Mich. 108; Butler v. Detroit, 43 Mich. our consideration; and ihe differences existing 552. under different charters are such as to leave In several of these as in other cases the doc the matter to be decided by its own facts. The trine has been recognized that the establishdefendant was incorporaied by “An Act to ment of corporations to act as municipal boards Create a Board of Water Commissioners in the or agencies did not give them any governmenVillage of Marquette, and to Define its Pow- tal municipal authority; and it is difficult to ers and Duties," approved March 2, 1869. see bow the incorporation or non incorporation The subsequent incorporation of the city of the same board cao change its character in merely made the necessary changes to meet the the performance of public duties. The furchange in government. Although not in nishing of water and the establishment of a tire terms declared to be a corporation, the powers department are among the almost universal given them are in such language as to make functions of cities; and the incorporation of ibem such. They are liable, as well as com- water and fire boards appointed by the city is petent, to be impleaded, to make contracts, only a convenient way of removing that busiand hold property, to bave a seal and make uess from the constant interference of the ordi. by laws, and geuerally “to do all legal acts nary city autborities, with such safeguards as which may be necessary and proper to carry are deemed best for that purpose. It was held out the effect, intent and object of this Act." in Detroit v. Blackeby, 21 Mich. 84, that cities As all of tbeir powers are contined legally to add municipalities are not usually responsible the scope of the Statute, it is necessary to in damages for the neglect of persons in public consider them. The members derive ibeir office, unless made so by statute; and it has appointment from the corporate body of the been held in numerous cases since that the city, and not from the people. By section 6 statute liability cannot be enlarged. Detroit they are required to examine and consider allv. Putnam, 45 Mich. 263; McKellar v. Detroit, maiters relative to supplying said [City] of 57 Mich. 158; McArthur v. Saginaw, 58 Mich. Marquette with a sufficient quantity of pure 357; Williams v. Grand Rapids, 59 Mich. 51; and wholesome water for doinestic use, also Keyes v. Morcellus, 50 Mich. 439. to provide suitable and efficient means for the On the other band, it was held in Detroit v. extinguishment of fires.” This is the general Corey, 9 Micb. 165, that where a city is enand sole purpose of all their incidental powers. gaged in making a work which is its private By subsequent sections they are empowered, property as a municipality, and not a mere under approval of the electors by vote on that public easement, and done under city employ. question, to issue bonds to a limited extent, ment or contract, it is responsible for injuries and, if unable to pay, to renew them. They caused by peglect in its process of construcare authorized to report to the city council, tion, as it is for any such action as directly inwhich is empowered, but not expressly re- jures private property. Pennoyer v. Saginaw, quired, to raise by tax any sums beyond the 8 Mich. 534; Ashley v. Port Huron, 35 Mich. revenue of the Board pecessary to pay princi- 296; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 11 Westo pal or interest on the bonds, or any deficiency Rep. 530. in operating expenses.” They are authorized, But it is not usually liable in other cases. "after the necessary means bave been pro- If tbis defendant was the representative directly cured, as herein provided,” to purchase neces of the people of Marquetle to govern the city, sary lands and materials, and construct reser- with power to tax the people to carry out its voirs, buildings, machinery, and fixtures to plans, and beld the property in its charge by supply water, and to provide means for fire proprietorship for its own purposes, it would protection, and are given, for the purposes of seem to come within the Corey Case. But a The "fire department,” the powers which city represents the people for all tbe strict pur. were before possessed by the village. They poses of local government, and has power to are empowered to lay pipes for water, and to raise its own revenue. The Legislature, in re quiring towns, cities and villages, to answer of incorporation, with no change of powers, in damages for neglect to keep roads in repair, can change their liabilities. at the same time found it necessary to remove We cannot consider, on this record, any one of the recognized difficulties arising from other question but tbe liability of this Board. lack of funds, by enabling them to provide by We know of no other instance in which a pubta xation for all such purposes. The purposes lic board can be subjected to suit without for which the present municipal agency was means of raising money from the taxpayers. created are entirely for the protection of the It is for the Legislature to determine how far, city from fire, and for promoting its healtb, by if at all, a body wbose negligence, if it is so & supply of good water. The defendant is called, is impuler, and io no sense actual, shall only enabled to obtain and bold such property be made subject to suit for the misconduct of as will be instrumental to that end. Every its employés. There are many cases where seizure of such property, if allowed, would such liability does not exist, except azainst tbe be a diminution of the power of defendant to immediate individual wrong-doer. The person perform its public duties in regard to public injured is not barmed any more where there health and safety. It not only has no iaxing are several persons liable than wbere there is power, but the city bas no power to give it only one. Imputed negligence is purely : any taxes, except such as will enable it to pay question of public policy, and subject to legisits bonds, and “meet any deficiency in operat- lative regulation. No one can be bound by ing expenses.” Ils property is not suloject to this record, except the immediate parties to it, execution. It cannot be true tbat such an and it would be impro;er to go beyond it. agency can be oflicially liable to suits for lia. The judgment should be reversed, with costs, bilities, where it has no legal means of raising and without a nero trial. funds for payment. As already suggested, Champlin, Ch. J., and Morse and Long, unincorporated boards are not so liable; and JJ., concurred; Grant, J., did not sit. there is no obvious reason why the mere fact



William MYHAN and Wife, Appts., latent, but only patent, defects. Actual

knowledge must be establishe 1 by the master, on LOUISIANA ELECTRIC LIGHT &

whom rests the burden or proof. POWER CO.

4. The servant has a right to assume su.

perior knowledge in his employer, to (....La. Ann.....)

rely on his prudence and ju igment, and to be•1. A master who carries on an immi.

lieve that he will not unnecessarily jeopard his

person and life by avoidable risk. pently dangerous undertaking, sucb as the generation and distribution of electricity, is 5. Verdict quashed, judgment reversed, and bound to know the character and extent of the judginent rendered for plaintits for $2,000. danger, and to notify the same to the servant specially and unequivocally, so as to be clearly

(December 2, 1889.) understood by him. 2. Absence of actual knowledge is no

exculpation. Constructive obligatory the Civil District Court for the Parish of knowledge supplies it. Such knowledge is pre- Orleans in favor of defendant in an action to sumed, juris and de jure, to exist.

recover damages for personal injuries resulting 8. The servant is not required to know in death, and alleged to have been caused by *Head notes by BERMUDEZ, Ch. J.

defendant's negligence. Reversed.

[ocr errors]


NOTE.- Master not to expose servant to extraordinary ployment. Louisville, N. 0. & T. R. Co. v. Conroy, risks.

63 Miss. 562. It is the duty of the master, so far as he can, by The rule that where the dangers of employment the use of extraordinary care, to avoid exposing are clearly known and open to observation as to his servants to extraordinary risks, but he is not both master and servant the former is not liable bound to guarantee them against such risks. does not apply where a servant known to be inex. Southwest Virginia Imp. Co. v. Andrew, 13 Va. L. perienced is set to work, without being cautioned, J. 6:34, 17 Wash. L. Rep. 599; Tissue v. Baltimore & with machinery known to the master to be unusu0. R. Co, 11:2 Pa. 91, 2 Cent. Rep. 596.

ally dangerous. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. He must use reasonable diligence in seeing that Frawley, 7 West. Rep. 44, 110 Ind. 18. the place where the service is to be perturmed is It is the duty of the master who sets the servant safe for that purpose, and to guard against the risk to work in a place of danger, to give him such no. of accident to his employés. Bennett v. Syndicate tice and instruction as is reasonably required by Ins. Co. 39 Minn. 254; Foster v. Pusey (Del.) 13 reason of the youth or inexperience of the servant. Cent. Rep. 47; Hungerford v. Chicago, M. & St. P. This duty is not confined to cuses where the servant R. Co. (Minn.) 43 N. W. Rep. 324.

is a “man of manitest imbecility." Atkins v. MerDangerous occupations demand correspondingly rick Thread Co. 3 New Eng. Rep. 39, 142 Miss. 31. greater care on the part of persons engaged in It is the duty of the employer to inform the em. them: but if one so engaged be injured by the neg- ployé of increased danger in the change of machinlect of the master, not freed from liability therefor ery, unless the changes and increase langer are by some contractual relation, such master cannot apparent that he ought to take notice. Hawkins v. avoid such responsibility because such injured per- Johnson, 2 West. Rep. 290, 105 Ind. 29: Brazil Block Bon was knowingly engaged in a dangerous em- Coal Co. v. Gaffney, 4 L. R. A. 850, 119 Ind. 455.

See also 9 L. R. A. 861; 11 L. R. 1. 773; 12 L. R. A. 103.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion. Messrs. Farrar, Jonas & Kruttschnitt Mr. George L. Bright, for appellants: for appellee.

Where tbe injury is caused parily by the degligence of a fellow servant, and parily by Bermudez, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the failure of the company to provide proper the court: and suitable apparatus, the negligence of the This is an action in damages, brought by a co-servant will not exonerate the company from father and mother, under the provisions of the consequences of its own default.

article 2315 (2294), Rev. Civil Code, as ainended Towns v. Vicksburg, 8. & P. R. Co. 37 La. in 1884. p. 94, No. 71. They aver, substanAnn. 632; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Cummings, tially, that their minor son, Edward, aged about 106 U. S. 700 (27 L. ed. 266); Ellis v. Nero eigbteen years, wbile in the employ of the de. York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 95 N. Y. 546. See fendant Company, was, on the 8th of August, also Sullivan v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. 39 1838, killed by the gross negligence and fault La. App. 800; Moses v. Louisrille, N. 0. & T. of the latter. The amount clained is $25,000. R. Co. Id. 650; Hanson v. Mansfield R. & The defense is a general denial, and contribuTransp. Co. 39 La. Ano. 112; Ketchum v. Teras tory negligence. The case was tried by a jury, & P. R. Co. Id. 778; Faren v. Sellers, 39 La. wbio rendered a verdict in favor of defendant Ann. 1020.

Company. From the judgment ibereon against The caution required is acrording to the ma- them the plaintiffs appeal. turity and rapacity of the child, a matter to be The charge made against the defendant is determined in each case by the circumstances that the accident occurred by its gross degliof that case.

gence and fault, which consisted in using wires Washington & G. R. Co. v. Gladmon, 82 U. wbich were not perfectly insulated, which S. 15 Wall

. 401 (21 L. ed. 114); Sioux City & formed a net-work on the floor, whereas they Pac. R. Co. v. Stout, 84 U. S. 17 Wall. 657 (21 should bave gone direct from ihe dynamo to L. ed. 745.

the ceiling, and should have been placed beIf the defendant is guilty of gross negligence, 'yond the reach of the employés. In exonerabe cannot set up a trifling negligence or inad. tion, the Company charges, counter, that the vertence of the plaintiff as a defense. young man, instead of approaching the dyna

Field, Damages, $ 168, pp. 159, 163; Whar. mo No. 35 in the reasonable and proper man. ton, Neg. SS 300, 301.

per required by the circumstances, did so, deAd employé bas a right to rely upon the care' liberately, from the front, and deliberately and superior knowledve and judgment of his straddled the two current-bearing wires leading employer.

from it, one to the ceiling and one to dynamo Wood, Mast, and S. 681, 738, 763; 2 Wharton, 50, which was coupled with dynamios 33 and Neg. p. 975, $ 215; Ellis v. New York, L. E. & 36, into a series of three; tbai, by the moveW. R. Co. 95 N. Y. 546; Faren v. Sellers, 39, ment thus occasioned, one of the wires touched La. Apn. 1020; 2 Thompson, Neg. p. 975. the interior of the boy's thigh, and the other

As to the proper amount of damages, see: ove the exterior of his buttock, tbus making

Choppin v. New Orleans & C. R. Co. 17 La. a circuit through bis body, the sbock of which Ann. 19; Summers v. Crescent City R. Co. 34 threw him on the dynamo, and thence on the La. Ann. 139; Vredenburg v. Behan, 33 La., floor, where be lay upon these wires, breaking Ann. 627; Ketchum v. Ieras & P. R. Co. 38 La. the circuit in bis fali, and receiving the full Ann. 777; Louisville, N.O. & T. R. Co.v. I'homp- force of it, which produced instant death. son, 64 Miss, 581; Wardle v. New Orleans R. The stubborn facts of the case are that Ed. Co. 35 La. Ann. 202; Peniston v. Chicago, St. Ward Myban, a young man of about eighteen L. & N. 0. R. Co. 34 La. Ann. 778; Washing. years, was in the employ of the Company, on ton & G. R. Co. v. Gladinon, 82 U.S. 15 Wall. ihe 8th of August, 1888, as nigbi-oiler, in the 401 (21 L. ed. 114); Houston v. Vicksburg, S. & dynamo-room of their plant, in this city; that Pac. R. Co. 39 La. Ann. 799; Sioux City & during the night of that day, while in the disPac. R. Co. v. Stout, 84 U. S. 17 Wall. 657 (21 charge of his duties as oiler, pressing tallow L. ed. 745).

down in the box of a dynamo, he came in con

It is uegligence in a mining company to fail to in- , knowledge of that fact. McDonald v. Chicago, St. form its employé of any danger from an unexplod. P. M. & 0. R. Co. (Minn.) 43 N. W. Rep. 380. ed blast in the vicinity of which such employé is Such employé is entitled to recover of the comworking, of which the company or its foreman | pany, which knew of or could bave discovered knows, or by the use of reasonable diligence ought their condition by the exercise of reasonable dile to know, Kelley v. Cable Co. 7 Mont. 70.

igence. Carpenter v. Mexican Nut. R. Co. supra. In such case the employé has a right to presume A master having charge of the work himself is that his employer bas done his duty in reference to guilty of negligence if defective appliances are the ascertainment of any danger from such blast. furnished, or the structure ipon which the servant Ibid.

is required to work is built in an unsafe manner. An employé who contracts for the performance Kuspari v. Marsh, 74 Wis. 562. of hazardous duties assumes such risks as are inci. The servant is not necessitrily guilty of contribdent to their discharge from causes open and obvi- utory negligence because he works in the vicinity ous, the dangerous character of which he has op- of dangerous machinery, knowing its condition, portunity to ascertain. Southwest Virginia Imp. the measure of the duty of the two in that regard Co. v. Andrew, 13 Va. L. J. 634, 17 Wash. L. Rep. not being the same. Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber 699.

Co. 37 Minn. 153. He does not assume any risk incident to the use So it is negligence on the part of a railroad comof defective appliances or machinery, of which he pany to allow its employé to pass over a defectivo is ignorant. Carpenter v. Mexican Nat. R. Co. 39 bridge, known to the corporation and not known Fed. Rep. 315.

to the servant Nason v. West, 2 New Eng. Rep. 74, The master is bound to see that the servant has ' 78 Me. 253.

tact with one or more wires, on or near the lators,” to the poles, and raise the wires fron
floor; and that he was instantly killed. There the floor, and run them on the insulators,
were only two persons present when the acci. wbich be did.
dent occurred, -the electrician in charge of the Another witness (Sittig) a fellow servant of
dynamo-room, and a fellow dypamo oiler. Myban, who was also present at the sad occur-

The former (Crowley) says that from Janu-rence, was beard. He was in the employ of
ary, 1896, to August 14, 1888, he was employed the Company when he testified, and had been
by the defendant corporation as chief dynamo previously, and was in such employ when
man in their large plant in New Orleans. Myban was killed. Myban walked to the ma-
There were about 60 dynamos in the establisb. cbine, straddled the wire, and put his band op
ment, arranged on the floor in series of three, the cup; and, as he did so, one wire rested a
each three connected to the plug-board. He little above his knee, on the left leg, and the
knew Edward Myhan, and had known bim for other touched him on the right leg, on the in-
nineteen months previous to his death, which side, and he put both hands on the cup, and he
occurred on August 8, 1889, at about 11 o'clock fell with his back on the machine. Crowley
in the night, in the arc light dynamo de part- ran bim (witness) away, and told him he would
ment of the defendant corporation. He was get killed. He was walking to Myban when
in the act of lubricating the dynamo box with he was killed. Saw bim drop. He bad bis
tallow. Owing to the arrangement of the hand on the tallow cup, shoving down the tal-
wires on the floor, he had to stand astride the low. He fell on the dynamo with bis back.
wires in order to get at the box. While in There were two wires aitached to the dynamo,
tbis position, one of his legs came in contact leading to another dynamo, near the end.
with a wire, and be received the full force of There were tbree dynamos connected by wires,
the electric current. At that time the witness two leading to each dynamo. The wires were
was about twenty feet away. His attention on the floor. Nearly all the dynamos were in
was attracted by a duil thud and a flash. On this way,-three to the circuit. Wires were
turning around, he saw Myhap on the floor. on the floor, where the men bad to walk. The
He bad broken the circuit in his fall. The morning after tbe killing the witness went
witness pulled one of the wires from under bis home, and wben be returned, in the afternoon
body; raised him in bis arms; sent for the (6 P. M.), he found that some of the wires had
superintendent, who at once came down. My- been raised, with poles, overhead.
ban cave one or two gasps thereafter, and then Two other witnesses (Burns and Bogel) tes-

tify in corroboration, except as to the circum-
The witness further states: Edward Myhan stances of the accident. Tbey establish the
was killed by the fault of the Company de notices to the manager and superintendent; the
fendant. The fault was in the arrangement of dangerous character of the wires; the neglect,
the dynamo wires. Part of the dynamos on after notice, to remove them. The change of
the opposite side were properly arranged. the wires after the accident is shown by another
Each dynamo was connected with the plug. witness, Wilson.
board by two wires running from the dynamo An electrician (Derbin) employed in defend-
to the ceiling direct. On the other side, where ant's plant across the river says that the wires
Myban was killed, three dydamos were con- there are not laid on the floor, but run to the
nected to the plug-board by two wires; part of ceiling. Another electrician (Krapp), of_the
these wires running along the floor of the Edison Company, who had charge of the Edi-
building, and part of them along the ceiling son station in the day-time, as dynamo-man.
A proper arrangement would have been lo says that he is an electrician; bas been in the
connect each dynamo by two wires direct to business some four or five years. He has
the plug board, and all the wires passing di. visited the dynamo-room in question. Some
rect from the dynamos, to and along the ceil. wires were placed overbead, and others, com-
ing, to the plug-board. The arrangement of ing down, connecting one machine, partly laid
the wires on the floor was the cause of the on the floor and partly brought up again and
death of Edward Myhan; for, had they heen brought back. There is no doubt the safer
connected from the dynamo to the ceiling, way is to lay the wires from the ceiling, as is
there would have been no danger in standing usual. He would not run them on the floor,
where Edward Myhan received the shock but on the ceiling. It is practicable to insulate
which caused bis death, The Company, in wires. By passing rubber tubes over them,
the judgment of the witness, was negligent contact with them will not create a current.
and careless in the arrangement of part of its Commercial insulated wire will not do. He
wires on the floor. He says that he frequently would not straddle wires; pot in ibat situation.
told the manager of the Company, and also the There is other testimony in the record, to-
superintendent, who were in charge of the show the age, habits, qualities of Edward My.
plant, at different times during his services for ban; his earvings; his devotion to bis parents;
the Company, that there was great danger in their circumstances, and peed of bis assistance;
leaving the wires on the floor and unprotected. tbe condition of his body after the accident;
No notice, says he, was ever taken of the and also testimony to show that the notices
warping, except they would remark they testified to were not given.
would attend to it by and by, or when they We bave been at some pains to state the facts
got a new superintendent, or offered some ex- as sworn to by the witnesses, although this was
cuse of the kind, until the day after Edward not strictly necessary. From the proof in the
Myban was killed, when the superintendent record, it more clearly appears that the young
and the general manager told him to get car- man was in the discharge of bis functions as
penters and have buil poles put on the dynamo an employé of the Company when he came in
frames, to attach the knobs, known as “ insu- contact with a charged wire, in consequence of

[ocr errors]

which he was instantly killed. It is therefore | nature, not only by laying one in the very room, undeniable that the wire or wires which he and in their plant across the river, in the mantouched, or which touched him, were danger ner in which they ought to have been placed, ous. Had they not been dangerous, they would but also by baving the wires put in the proper not bave killed him. He might bave received condition immediately after the accident. a shock only, even becoming unconscious; but Based on sound reason and justice, the law, he would not have died from contact therewith. as expounded by jurisprudence, is clear that it The Company's representatives had been warned is rot contributory negligence to engage in a several times of the dangerous character and dangerous occupation (Beach, Contrib. Neg. condition of the wires on the floor, -of the pro- 370; Wood, Mast. and S. 763); that the risk aspriety, at least, if not the necessity, of running sumed by the servants is the ordinary bazard, them up to the ce ling; but the warnings re- incident to the employment, and this is synmained unbeeded. The representatives of the onymous with unavoidable accident (Wood, Company, to whom it is said that the warnings Mast, and S. 738); tbat, unless the act is neceswere given, denied that they ever were; but sarily and inevitably dangerous, po negligence this denial is of a weak character. The affirma can be imputed (Beach, Contrib. Neg. 370; tive testimony, corroborated as it is, ontbal- Wood, Mast. and S. 763; that the servant has a ances the negative, and justifies the inference right to rely on the care and trust, the superior ibat tbe notices given were upbeeded, because koowledge, information and judgment of the they were for iten. At any rate, it was the employer, and to act upon the presumption duty of the defendant Company to have known that the latter would not expose him to unnecof the dangerous character and condition of the essary risk, and has taken all necessary pre wires. The knowledge they ought to have cautions (Wood, Mast. and S.681, 738, 739, 749, had, the law presumes, juris et de jure, they 751, 763; 2 Thompson, Neg. 975); that an em. had. Even had the Company's representatives ployé is not bound to inquire as to latert, but sworn that they did not know of the same, such only patent, defects; that he has the right to ignorance on their part would not bave excul- presume that this inquiry bas been made by pated them. A superior is presumed to know, the employer upon wbom the duty devolves, and in law knows, that which it is his duty to and, although the servant may know of the know, namely, whatever may endanger the defects, this will not defeat his clnim, unless it person and life of his employé' in the discharge is shown that he knew that the defects are danof bis duties,

gerous (Wbart. Neg. $ 214; Wood, Mast, and In such cases the superior is bound specially S. 786–789); that the master is liable for subto warn the employé of the pature of the dan-jecting the servant, through negligence, to ger, and will not be excused, in case of injury, greater risks than those wbich fairly belong to unless he does prove that the employé well the employment, and the servant need only, in knew of the dauger, and, potwithstanding, ex- order to recover, to raise a reasonable presumpposed himself willingly and deliberately to it. tion of negligence or fault on defendant's part. In ibis case there is no evidence showing that Wood, Mast. and S. 777; Faren v. Sellers, 39 the Company, or any of its officers, ever noti. La. Ann. 1020. tiel Myban of the dangerous character of the Considering the facts and the law, we are wires in question, about which be bad to move, driven to the conclusion that the Company is or that be knew of the same. The burden of responsible. positive proof was on ibe defendant. The great The other question to be considered is the presumption, not to say the certain proof, is quantum of damages to be allowed. This is that he was totally unaware of the same; for it not an easy task, in the absence of any rule or cannot for one instant be reasonably supposed precedent by which to be governed. The testhat, bad be knowo tbat by coming in contact iimony shows tbat the plaintiffs move in the with the wires they would have stricken bim bumbler walks of life; that the husband is a down dead, he would have done so, thereby policeman, on a salary of $50 per month; ikat commiuing suicide. It is manifest that, had be bas five children, and provides for three of the wires been laid as is usually done, or even them, and for bis wife; tbat Myhan was at the been properly insulated, coming in contact time of his death between eighteen and ninewith them could not bave, as it did, produced teen years of age, with a bright prospect of dealh.

existence before bim; that he was then earning The testimony of the electrician in charge $25 per month, wbich, as a dutiful son, be emof the dynamo-room at the time the accident | ploved to minister unto the wants of bis father's took place, and who was no longer in the em- | family. Of his presence among them, of ploy of the Company when be testified, is clear that assistance, they are forever deprived. The ihai Myban bad to stand astride the wires to probability is that, as he was a robust young get at the box; but this seems to be denied by man, attentive to his duties, and kind to his the Company, who says that Myhan could and parents, be would bave advanced in life, and ought to have got to them in another, which bettered his and their condition. In the course was the proper, way. Its theory on the sub- of years, be would have accumulated earnivgs ject is purely bypotbetical. It in no manner to some reasonable extent, due regard being accords with the establisbed facts, and the great bad to bis personal wants and necessities. It presumptions arising from them. Even if it is for the deprivation of his presence and supwere oiberwise, the most material, the staring, port that his father and molber are entitled, fact remains, that the wires were dangerous; under the provisions of the law, to relief. that the Company knew them to be such; that While we consider the claim which they have it did not specially warp Myban, and did not set up for indemnity at $25,000 is excessive, show that he knew that they were of that char- and admit that it is almost impossible, system. acter. The Company admitted their perilous atically, to figure out by items what ainount.

« AnteriorContinuar »