Piedmont Electric Illuminating Co. v. Patteson's Adm'x

Citations

• 84 Va. 747
• 6 S.E. 4
• 1888 Va. LEXIS 139

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant—Allegations—Proof—Contributory Negligence.—Declaration alleges that by defendant’s negligence the electric current passed through and killed plaintiff’s intestate whilst engaged about his special duties in defendant’s service. But plaintiff fails to prove that defendant in any way, by commission or omission, caused the current to pass through and kill the intestate:</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>The inference is inevitable that the intestate’s contributory negligence was the proximate cause of his death.</p> <p>2. Idem—Defective Appliances—Contributory Negligence.—Where the defects in the shunt-cord used by intestate caused his death, were visible to him, and yet he chose it for himself, without necessity or direction, he was guilty of contributory negligence, and there can be no recovery.</p> <p>8. Idem—Case at Bar.—In action against an electric light company for negligently killing an employee, it was proved that he was sent to look for a break in the circuit whilst the current was on, and took with him a defective shunt-cord. He found the break, and trying to turn on the current, grasped the cord at its defective end, and, at the same time, put his other hand on the naked end of the line wire, whereby the current passed through and killed him. Had he grasped the line wire above the exposed end he would not have been injured, notwithstanding the fact that the shunt-cord was defective in not being insulated throughout its entire length:</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>The evidence failing to show negligence on the defendant’s part unmixed with the intestate’s contributory negligence, was insufficient to sustain the verdict for the plaintiff.</p>