United Electric Light & Power Co. v. State Ex Rel. Lusby

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was brought on the 2nd day of December, 1902, ⁶⁴⁹ in the Baltimore City. Court, in the name of the State for the use of Barbara Lusby, widow, and Henry I. Lusby, infant child, against the appellant and the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore City, to recover damages for the death of Harry H. Lusby, husband and father of the equitable plaintiffs, which is alleged to have been caused by contact with an electric wire charged with electricity at the corner of Fremont avenue and Portland street, Baltimore. The declaration states that his death was occasioned by the negligence of the defendant in permitting a wire of the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. to break and come in contact with one of the feed wires of the United Electric Light and Power Company, the latter wire being improperly and defectively insulated and heavily charged with electricity.

And that the defendants were negligent in permitting the wires to become and remain in a condition dangerous to the lives of persons lawfully using the highways of Baltimore, by reason of which default, wrongful act and negligence of the defendants, the equitable plaintiffs have lost the services, society and companionship of their husband and father, and sustained great injury and damage. On the 8th of June, 1904, there was a verdict in favor of the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company under the instructions of the Court. On the 10th of June of the same year, there was a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, against the United Electric Light and Power Company the appellant here for nine thousand dollars, divided as follows: six thousand dollars to Barbara Lusby, widow, and three, thousand dollars to Henry Lusby, infant, and from a judgment thereon the defendant has appealed. The record contains thirteen exceptions, twelve of which relate to'the admissibility of testimony offered during the trial and the thirteenth was taken to the action of the Court in refusing to grant the appellant’s first, first a, second, third, fourth, fifth, eighth and eleventh prayers. ■ It will not be necessary, however for us to consider in detail all of the exceptions to the testimony offered because some of them can be considered together. ⁶⁵⁰ It appears that the accident in this case happened on the twenty-sixth day of November, 1902, about 3 o’clock in the morning at the corner of Fremont and Portland streets, Baltimore.

No one saw the accident, but the body was found lying on.the sidewalk, face downwards and pointing towards the east and about four or five feet from the curbstone on Fremont street; a copper telephone wire was wrapped around the body and he was burned around the neck and left hand. The wire was charged with electricity coming from a feed wire of the appellant company strung some thirty-five feet above the sidewalk. It appears from the testimony that death was occasioned by contact with the telephone wire which had become charged with electricity by falling across the feed wire of the appellant company. The telephone wire was found across and in contact with the insulated feed wire of the appellant company.

We do not think that the facts of this case as disclosed by the record furnish any ground for the conclusion that the death of the deceased was caused by the negligence of the appellant company. There is a failure of evidence to establish negligence on the part of the company and there is no evidence to show a failure on its part to perform any duty that •it owed to the deceased. The first, third, seventh, tenth, eleventh and twelfth exceptions to the admission of evidence are substantially the same and can be considered together. It was error,