Whitworth v. Shreveport Belt Ry. Co.

Citations

• 112 La. 363
• 36 So. 414
• 65 L.R.A. 129
• 1904 La. LEXIS 401

Syllabus

<p>INJUBY TO EMPLOYÉ — CONTBIBUTOBY NEGLIGENCE — EVIDENCE.</p> <p>1. Potts and Whitworth, employés of the telephone company, were engaged in stretching' a line of that company upon its poles. In doing so, the line had to be passed above a span of the electric car system. Potts, upon the telegraph pole, was holding one end of the wire, while Whitworth, upon the ground, was holding the other. The latter stumbled, and in doing so dropped his end of the wire, which fell to the ground, resting upon the span wire below, which, by reason of defective insulation in the hanger by which the trolley wire and the span wire were connected, was heavily charged with electricity. Potts, holding the other end of the wire, instantly received a shock, 'and fell head foremost, but his spurs caught on a spike on the telephone pole, and he hung suspended in the air. Whitworth ran to his relief, and, catching-hold of the wire of his own company, which he had been using, to do so, he himself was instantly killed.</p> <p>Held, that Whitworth, in going to the rescue of Potts, was not in fault, but was acting under a high sense of moral duty, and for his death while engaged in performance of that duty, occasioned by the negligence of the electric company, it is responsible in damages. Corbin v. City of Philadelphia, 45 Atl. 1070, 195 Pa. 461, 49 L. R. A. 715, 78 Am. St. Rep. 825; West Chicago Street R. R. Co. v. Liderman (111.) 58 N. E. 367, 52 L. R. A. 655, 79 Am. St. Rep. 226; Becker v. L. & N. R. R. (Ky.) 61 S. W. 997, 53 L. R. A. 267.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>