Faulk v. Duquesne Light Co.

Citations

• 259 Pa. 389
• 103 A. 111
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 422

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Electric company — Wires — Defective transformers — Notice—Death of lineman — Presumption of care — Contributory negligence — Conflicting facts — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. Where a lineman employed by an electric company is killed while working around live wires on a telegraph pole he is presumed to have used care.</p> <p>2. Where the facts or inferences upon which the question of contributory negligence depends are in doubt, that question, if controlling, must be submitted to the jury.</p> <p>3. In an action against an electric company to recover for the death of plaintiff’s son, who was employed by defendant as a lineman, the question of defendant’s negligence and the contributory negligence of the decedent are for the jury where it appears that defendant’s foreman, a vice-principal, directed decedent to connect certain wires at or near a transformer, which, had been out of repair and in a leaky condition for some time and to such an extent as to electrify the metal case, of which fact defendant had notice; that decedent climbed the pole pursuant to such direction and immediately came in contact with the transformer, apparently by his arm touching- the live case as he put it in the four-inch space between the case and the buck-arm while fastening his safety belt around the pole; that decedent had been employed aá a lineman for from ten to twelve months and was ranked in the lowest of three classes of workmen as to experience and efficiency; and although he had been instructed as to the dangers of the business and warned not to touch a transformer case, he had not been warned of the defective condition of the transformer in question.</p>