Heyse v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

Citations

• 248 Pa. 99
• 93 A. 877
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 519

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Safe place to work — Electricity — Permit — Mistaken assurance of safety — Proximate cause — Case for fury.</p> <p>In an action against an electric company to recover damages for personal injuries it appeared that the plaintiff, a carpenter who had no knowledge of electrical appliances, was employed by a contractor engaged in making repairs in the switch room of the defendant company’s electrical plant and was injured by coming in contact with a live switch. The plaintiff had commenced to work in such room after notice by the defendant’s operating department and after the issuance by the latter of a permit, upon which all parties had the right to rely, and the work being uncompleted the first day, had returned the succeeding day, when the accident happened. It appeared that under the defendant company’s rules a new permit was necessary for each day’s work, and that the permit previously issued had been returned by the foreman of the defendant company’s construction department at the end of the first day’s work, of which facts plaintiff had no knowledge. An employee of the defendant upon the ground who turned the electric current on and off in the compartment in which plaintiff was working at the time of the accident gave additional assurance of safety, but in the course of the work the plaintiff came in contact with a switch to which the defendant had permitted current to flow and was injured. Held, that the question of defendant’s negligence was properly left to the jury.</p>