$1,500 not excessive for failure to deliver message summon-
ing physician.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Russell (Tex.)........
$500 for failure to promptly deliver telegram, summoning
clergyman to administer baptism and spiritual consolation
to sender's dying daughter, not excessive.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Robinson (Tenn.)....
Statute prohibiting discrimination by telephone companies
held to apply to discrimination not only between appli-
cants for telephone but also between patrons having
instrumeuts.
Central Union Teleph. Co. v. Fehring (Ind.)...................
Contract of railroad company purporting to grant exclusive
right of way to one telegraph company is void.
Union Trust Co. v. Atchison, &c. R. Co. (N. M.).............
United States v. U. P. Ry. Co., and W. U. Tel. Co.
(U. S.)................
Duty of electrical companies to maintain safe appliances.
Privilege granted to electrical companies by municipal
authorities to encumber public highways with appliances
likely to endanger traveling public, unless properly
employed and controlled, imposes upon them duty of
managing their affairs so as to make travelers' lawful use
of street substantially as safe as before. Therefore, fact
of injury by such appliances when not in proper condi-
tion raises presumption of negligence.
Evidence held sufficient to warrant decision that telephone
wire by shock from which injury occurred became
charged through feed wire of trolley railway.
Joint action against both companies sustained.
Western Union Tel. Co. of Baltimore, &c. v. State to
Use of Nelson (Md.)................
It is duty of electric light company to perfectly insulate its
wires at points where persons are apt to come in contact
with them, and to use utmost care to keep them insulated.
Proof that person injured by contact with electric light
wire at place where insulation defective, held conclusive
proof of negligence, the place being such that persons were
liable to come in contact with it.
McLaughlin v. Louisville Elec. Light Co. (Ky.)..............
Where in prosecution of its business, electric street railway
company maintains wire charged with such powerful and
dangerous current of electricity as to be liable, upon
coming into contact with wires of other companies, to
cause injury or death to employes of the latter while
engaged in the performance of their duties, it is under
duty to such employes to observe at least ordinary dili-
gence not only in preventing such contact, but also in
discovering and preventing its continuance, even when
occasioned by negligence of others, including corporation
whose employes are thus exposed to danger.
Circumstances held sufficient to warrant inference that
person was killed by electric shock, whether or not death
would have ensued had he not fallen from pole.
Atlanta Consolidated St. Ry. Co. v. Owings (Ga.)....
Each of several electrical companies, which by agreemeut
occupy common pole to support their wires, bound to take
all reasonable precautions to prevent injury to servants of
any of the others, who may be sent there in pursuance of
the common right; and this duty is not so circumscribed
that it ceases to exist if servant of one company happens
to rest hand or foot upon crossarm belonging to another
company, or to touch its wires.
Fact that wire is insulated at all is evidence that company
maintaining it is aware of possibility and danger of con-
tact with it. Fact that wire appears to be insulated is
calculated to inspire reliance upon its safety. Company
maintaining it therefore chargeable with high degree of
care to keep insulation perfect.
Newark Electric Lt. & P. Co. v. Garden (U. S.) ..................
Fact that electric company permitted uninsulated wire to
remain on poles, in street crowded with live wires, though
knowing that it was liable to break and carry current to
ground by falling across live wire, held to warrant finding
of negligence.
Dillon v. Allegheny County Light Co. (Pa.).....................
In action for killing horse by shock from trolley wire hang-
ing loose in street, held that company bound to highest
degree of care commensurate with the danger, and fact
that wire was permitted to hang where it did was prima
facie proof of negligence.
Larson v. Central Railway Co. (Ill.)...
Facts that horse stepped on rail of trolley road and imme-
diately fell to ground in dying condition; also that its
driver touching harness, received severe shock—held prima
facie proof of defective insulation and so of negligence.
Clark v. Nassau Electric Railroad Co. (N. Y.)......
Circumstances under which lineman of electric light com-
pany was injured by shock from uninsulated wire of trol-
ley road held not such that railroad company could have
reasonably anticipated such an accident.
Huber v. La Crosse City Ry. Co. (Wis.)................
In case of injury caused by shock from broken telephone
wire fallen across trolley wire, action held jointly main-
tainable against telephone and railway companies.
McKay & Roche v. Southern Bell Teleph. & Tel. Co.,
&c. (Ala.)....
Injury by shock from telephone wire, broken and fallen
upon trolley wire, held due to concurring negligence of
owners of both wires.
Facts held to warrant inference that telephone wire received
current from trolley wire, without direct evidence of
actual contact.
City Electric St. Ry. Co. v. Conery (Ark.).......
Questions of evidence in case of injury by electric shock.
East Tennessee Telephone Co. v. Simms` Admr. (Ky.).
Instructions to jury in action for damages due to shock
caused by contact with broken wire held not to constitute
reversible error.
Mitchell v. Charleston Light & Power Co. (S. C.).....
Falling of insulator which simply rested on peg on crossarm
of high pole standing in populous street, and having upon
it many wires, which required frequent adjustment by
linemen, is prima facie proof of negligence.
Company maintaining such pole, whether or not it main-
tained the particular insulator, was charged with duty of
keeping pole and all appliances upon it in such condition
as to protect travelers from unnecessary hazard.
Quill v. Empire State Teleph. & Tel. Co. (N. Y.).............
In action by person walking in street on account of injuries
received by switch-stick which flew from hands of con-
ductor of trolley car, while attempting to free trolley
caught in frog in overhead switch, questions of negligence
and contributory negligence properly submitted to jury.
Manning v. West End Street Ry. Co. (Mass.).........
Post from four to six feet high, placed in carriage way of
city street, and guy wire attached to it four or five feet
from ground, to support pole for electric wires, is danger-
ous obstruction, and person injured by guy wire entitled
to recover, although accident would not have happened
but for fright of his horse.
Lundeen v. Livingston Elec. Lt. Co. (Mont.)........
Electric street railway negligent in placing guy wires over
track of steam railway company so as to endanger em-
ployes of latter; steam railway company negligent in per-
mitting wires to be so placed.
Erslew v. New Orleans, &c. R. Co. et al. (La.)..
Nonsuit improperly granted in action for death of boy
thrown into the air by sudden raising of feed wire from
street by employes of electric street railway company.
Devine v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Co. (N. Y.)...............
In action based on injury to boy by falling of electric light
pole which employes of defendant were taking down, ques-
tions of defendant's negligence held properly submitted
to jury.
Kyle v. Southern Electric Light & Power Co. (Pa.) 332, note.
In action for damages for injuries caused by collision of
trolley car with hook and ladder truck, judgment for
plaintiff sustained, it appearing that but for overcrowding
car might have been stopped in time to avoid accident.
This in spite of fact of erroneous charge as to failure to equip
car with specified motor.
Garthright v. Richmond Railway & Elec. Co. (Va.)..
Electric street railway company, running its cars by
overhead wires, must use every means to protect public
from injury, regardless of expense, and must at once
repair wires broken by accident.
Cook v. Wilmington City Elec. Co. (Del.)......
Gas company held liable for injuries caused by explosion of
boiler used in electric light works, upon grounds that if
electric light company's corporate existence was suspended
the gas company succeeding it was directly liable; and if
not suspended it was agent of the gas company which was
liable for its torts.
Kaufman, Strauss & Co. v. Louisville Elec. Lt.
Co. (Ky.).....
Duty of electrical companies to their employes.
Law imposes duty on electric street railway, authorized
to use so dangerous an agency as electricity and so
dangerous appliance as uninsulated trolley wire, duty
of using very high degree of care, and holds it ac-
countable for injury to any person, including its own
employes, for neglect of that duty.
Company properly held liable for injury to lineman due to
shock communicated to him from trolley wire by uninsu-
lated span-wire.
McAdam v. Central Railway & Elec. Co. (Conn.).....
In action for damages for death of employe of electric light
company killed by electric shock while turning on elec-
tricity by means of a cut-out box, in order to light an
electric lamp which he found in darkness, the same being
in the line of his duty, it appearing that the shock was
due to defective insulation, which had been discovered by
another employe, who had thereupon adopted one rather
than another method of cutting that lamp out from the
circuit, keeping the others lighted, held competent to show
that the other course might have been adopted and the
accident thereby averted.
This condition of affairs held to be covered by language of
employer's liability act, St. 1887, ch. 270, as being "defect
in condition of machinery."
Willey v. Boston Elec. Lt. Co. (Mass.)......
Degree of care required of master to furnish servant with
safe appliances is measured by danger of forces employed.
In action for death of employe of electric light company,
by shock from defective insulation, facts held sufficient to
warrant submission of question of negligence to jury.
Harroun v. Brush Elec. Light Co. (N. Y.)......
In action for damages for injuries by burning and shock,
caused to employe of electric street railway by contact
with fire alarm telegraph wire fallen upon and charged
from trolley wire, instructions to jury held erroneous as
tending to base liability upon fact of danger rather than
upon negligence of company.
Lincoln Street Ry. Co. v. Cox (Neb.).....
In action for damages for death by electric shock of lamp
trimmer of electric light company, plaintiff held properly
required to furnish bill of particulars as to that branch of
complaint in which was charged failure to employ cer-
tain improved appliances in general use and necessary to
safety of trimmers; but not as to that branch in which
defective construction and negligent maintenance of
lamp was charged, that being peculiarly within defend-
ant's knowledge.
Stillman v. Brush Elec. Lt. Co. of Rochester (N. Y.).
In action for damages for injuries to lineman of telegraph
company by shock, facts held to warrant judgment for
plaintiff. Instructions to jury as to assumption of risks
by servant and duty of employer to protect servant held
proper.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. McMullen (N. J.)..........
|