Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Denver Consolidated Electric Co. v. Lawrence.

any way, the company shall be liable for damages only after notice, and then only for the abatement of rent during such interruption; "nor shall it be liable in any event for damage to person or property arising, accruing or resulting from the use of the light." The object of this provision is to relieve the company from the obligation it owes to the general public and its patrons. Stipulations of this character cannot relieve the company of its liability for failure to perform its duty, and courts usually decline to enforce them, upon the ground that they are unconscionable and in contravention of public policy.

Other questions are presented by the assignment of errors, but we do not discuss them. We are satisfied, from an examination of the whole record, that substantial justice has been done the parties; that the jury could not properly have rendered any other verdict than one holding the company responsible for the injury. The verdict of the jury being reasonable under the circumstances shown, we shall affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.

Death by shock from electric lamp. In the case of Alton Ry. & Ill. Co. v. Foulds, 7 Am. Electl. Cas. 548, 81 Ill. App. 322, it appeared that the plaintiff's wife in taking hold of the wire or metal socket of an electric lamp in her house in the act of lighting it, received a fatal shock. There was evidence of a grounded primary wire and of conditions rendering it possible for the current to pass around instead of through the transformer; neither of which alone could, but both together might, have caused the deadly current to enter the house, resulting in the death in question. It was held that the question of the defendant's negligence was proper for the jury. See note at end of above case in 7 Am. Electl. Cas. 556.

PART VII.

INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES.

(633)

INJURY TO EMPLOYEES BY CONTACT WITH LIVE

WIRES.

TEDFORD V. LOS ANGELES ELECTRIC CO.

California; Supreme Court.

1. INJURY TO UNSKILLED EMPLOYEE; DUTY TO INSTRUCT.—The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a common unskilled laborer to do the ordinary work of digging holes for electric poles and other general street work. He was directed by the foreman of the defendant to go upon a small platform attached to a pole at a distance of about eighteen feet above the ground, and scrape one of the electric wires. While engaged in this occupation he received an electric shock causing him to fall to the ground, and seriously injuring him. He had no knowledge of the dangers of such work and was not instructed or warned as to such danger, nor was he furnished with any of the ordinary protective appliances used by linemen. It was held that the defendant was liable because of its failure to instruct and warn the plaintiff as to the hidden dangers; the duty of imparting such instruction is personal to the employer and cannot be delegated to another employee.

Appeal by defendant from judgment for plaintiff. Decided August 30, 1901; reported, 134 Cal. 76, 66 Pac. 76.

Gibbon & Halsted and W. A. Cheney, for appellant.

Henry T. Gage and W. T. Foley, for respondent.

Opinion by MCFARLAND, J.:

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $15,000. Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

Defendant is a corporation engaged in furnishing, carrying, and distributing electricity through the city of Los Angeles for light

« AnteriorContinuar »