Anderson v. Northern States Power Co.

52 N.W.2d 434, 236 Minn. 196, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 644
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMarch 14, 1952
Docket35,807, 35,808
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 52 N.W.2d 434 (Anderson v. Northern States Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anderson v. Northern States Power Co., 52 N.W.2d 434, 236 Minn. 196, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 644 (Mich. 1952).

Opinion

*198 Knutson, Justice.

Plaintiff Eugene Anderson suffered severe personal injuries when he came in contact with a high-voltage wire owned and maintained by defendant. Two actions were commenced, one by Fred Anderson, the father of Eugene, who is a minor, to recover medical and hospital expenses and loss of earnings of his son during his minority, and the other by Eugene Anderson, by Fred Anderson, his father and natural guardian, to recover for the injuries sustained by Eugene. The cases were consolidated for trial. Verdicts were returned by the jury for plaintiffs in both cases. Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were granted by the trial court, and appeals were taken from the judgments entered pursuant thereto. The appeals have been heard together here. Inasmuch as decision in the Eugene Anderson case is decisive of both, he will be referred to herein as plaintiff.

Wells Memorial, Inc., a charitable organization, maintains a camp for boys at Big Lake, Minnesota. The camp was started about 30 years ago and has been built up over the years. The first building erected was a main lodge, which is still part of the camp. Entrance to the camp is made from a public highway running east and west. Upon entering, one travels in a southeasterly direction, encountering first a toilet or bathhouse, which is to the east of the entrance road about 200 feet from the highway. To the west of the road is the main lodge or clubhouse. At the main lodge is a place where a vehicle may be turned around so as to get back onto the highway. Continuing on from the main lodge, the road runs south for a distance of two or three city blocks, where there is another place for vehicles to turn around. The lake and cottages are located on the west side of the road south of the main lodge. There are woods south of the main lodge, the land east of the roadway being heavily wooded.

At first the camp owned its own electric light plant. In 1935, arrangements were made with defendant to furnish the camp with electricity. The company built a transmission line through the camp property from the south edge thereof to a pole near the bath *199 house or toilet, on which is located a transformer which cuts the voltage down to the ordinary 110- and 220-volt current. The current is then distributed through the camp by means of wires belonging to the camp organization. The transmission line consists of two wires hanging on crossarms. The wires are 4 feet 11 inches apart, one wire carrying a 4,000-volt current, the other being a neutral or ground wire, carrying no current. The wires are 25 feet 4 inches above the surface of the ground. The transmission line goes through woods some -distance east of the road mentioned above. The area through which the transmission line runs is heavily wooded. A clearing had been made through the woods for the line. Prior to the time here involved, there were no cabins or other buildings in the area followed by the transmission line.

During the winter of 1949-1950, the trustees of the camp organization decided to build an additional cottage or bunkhouse. Sometime during the month of May 1950, Wells Eastman, one of the trustees, and others connected With the camp selected the site for the new cottage and placed stakes where it should be built. The site selected was on a rise in a small clearing in the woods about three blocks south of the main entrance and 200 feet east of the camp roadway. It was located directly under the wires of the power company’s line as it then existed. Henry B. Anderson, the camp caretaker, who had looked over the site of the new cottage after Mr. Eastman had staked it out, some time later had occasion to talk over the telephone with Mr. Eastman about the matter. He was asked by the latter what he thought of the spot, and he replied: “It is a nice spot, but did you notice it is right under those wires.” Eastman answered that “if we think we got too close to that, we will have them moved.” There were no other cottages hearer than 150 feet from the site selected for the new cottage. There was a path running to the roadway from the site selected, and it was also possible to drive to the new cottage from the roadway in a roundabout way.

During the latter part of May 1950, a carpenter by the name of Noel E. Landes was hired to erect the new cottage. He was au *200 thorized to hire his own help as needed, the help to be paid by Wells Memorial, Inc. When he was shown the place where the cabin was to be built, he told Eastman that it would be directly underneath the electric wires. Eastman replied that if the wires were in the way he would notify the power company to remove them.

Landes proceeded to build the cabin. He hired another carpenter by the name of William J. Christenson and plaintiff Eugene Anderson as an assistant. Plaintiff was then 15 years of age. On June 8, the cabin had been so far completed that the men were working on the roof. The building was so constructed that the roof, which was of a Y-type, was feet from the so-called “hot” wire, which carried 4,000 volts of electricity, and 3% feet from the neutral wire. The center of the roof, as will be seen, was not squarely between the two wires, which accounts for the difference in distance between the roof and the wire on one side and the roof and the wire on the other side. While working on the top of the roof, plaintiff came into contact with the wires and was severely burned. No one witnessed the accident, and plaintiff does not recall what happened.

Plaintiff contends that defendant was negligent in the following respects: (1) That it failed to insulate its wires; (2) that it failed to erect warning signs showing that the line carried a high-voltage current; (3) that it failed to make reasonable inspections; and (4) that it failed to move its line or otherwise protect the workmen from harm after discovering the close proximity of its wires to the top of the new cottage.

The applicable law respecting the care required of electric companies owning and operating lines distributing or carrying heavy voltage currents of electricity is well settled. Electric companies erecting and maintaining lines for the transmission of high-voltage currents of electricity are held to a high degree of care. They must exercise care commensurate with the peril reasonably to be apprehended to those who may have occasion to come in proximity to them. In Bunten v. Eastern Minnesota Power Co. *201 178 Minn. 604, 607, 228 N. W. 382, 333, where many of the cases are collected, we said :

“Those engaged in transmitting such a dangerous force as electricity, which gives no warning of its presence and is not apparent to the senses, are required to exercise a degree of care in constructing and maintaining the wires over which it is transmitted commensurate with the danger to he apprehended from contact with such wires or the escape of electricity therefrom; * * *.”

That rule has been followed and repeated in numerous cases since. See, Neumann v. Interstate Power Co. 179 Minn. 46, 228 N. W. 342; Faribault v. Northern States Power Co. 188 Minn. 514, 247 N. W. 680; Keep v. Otter Tail Power Co. 201 Minn. 475, 277 N. W. 213; and Schroepfer v. City of Sleepy Eye, 215 Minn. 525, 529, 10 N. W. (2d) 398, 401, where, after stating the general rule, we said:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co.
239 N.W.2d 190 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1976)
Turley v. Montana Power Co.
Montana Supreme Court, 1975
Hiedeman v. Hiedeman
187 N.W.2d 119 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1971)
Naki v. Hawaiian Electric Co.
442 P.2d 55 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1968)
Bloomquist v. William H. Ziegler Co. Inc.
133 N.W.2d 484 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1965)
Johnson v. Lorraine Park Apts. Inc.
128 N.W.2d 758 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1964)
Erlandson v. Northern States Power Co.
104 N.W.2d 859 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1960)
Martin v. Northern States Power Co.
72 N.W.2d 867 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1955)
Willmar Gas Co. Inc. v. Duininck
53 N.W.2d 225 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 N.W.2d 434, 236 Minn. 196, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-northern-states-power-co-minn-1952.