Blalack v. Texas Traction Co.

149 S.W. 1086, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 759
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 22, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 149 S.W. 1086 (Blalack v. Texas Traction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blalack v. Texas Traction Co., 149 S.W. 1086, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 759 (Tex. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

RAINEY, C. J.

Blalaek brought this suit against the Traction Company to recover damages for personal injuries received by him from coming in contact with an electric wire in appellee’s substation in the town of Plano, and used by appellee in operating its interurban railroad trains. The Traction Company answered by general and special exceptions, general denial, contributory negli *1087 gence, etc. Tlie aid of a jury was invoked, but, upon bearing of tbe evidence, tbe court gave a peremptory instruction to tbe jury to return a verdict for tbe Traction Company, wbieb was accordingly done, judgment so entered, and Blalack appeals.

Tbe allegations of plaintiff’s petition are: “That on tbe morning of October 8, 1908, C. T. Reed was tbe agent for tbe defendant in charge of said plant and machinery (meaning tbe substation at Plano), and it was a part of bis duty to clean up said machinery and keep tbe same in repair, or cause tbe same to be repaired, and that he ,was authorized to employ assistants in tbe performance of bis duties in keeping said machinery cleaned up and in repair; that said agent was in exclusive charge and control of said plant and machinery during tbe nighttime, and was authorized by tbe defendant to admit or exclude persons from that part of tbe station; that prior to said date it was usual and customary for tbe said agent'to invite persons in tbe said building and to employ and invite persons to assist him in and about said machinery, and it was usual and customary for said agent to invite and employ tbe plaintiff to assist him in cleaning up said machinery, all of which custom and usage as aforesaid was well known to tbe defendant, or could have been known by tbe exercise of ordinary care; that, if said agent was not in fact authorized to employ assistants, then plaintiff alleges and charges the fact to be that tbe defendant was holding him up to tbe public and caused the public to believe that said agent possessed such authority, and tbe plaintiff was thereby led to believe that tbe said agent had authority to employ him.” In said petition the plaintiff alleged, in substance, the employment by the night agent of the appellant, and that appellant was inexperienced and knew nothing of the dangers attending said work, and that the defendant’s said agent directed plaintiff to go into a dangerous place and clean some insulators without giving' him any notice or warning of the danger, and that appellant while in the performance of his duty as a servant, or as one invited on the premises, was seriously and permanently injured on account of coming into contact with wires charged with electricity. The claim is made in said petition that it was the duty of the defendant to have exercised ordinary care to have furnished' plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to perform his duties, and then alleges facts showing the failure of the defendant to perform his duty, and the injury resulting proximately from such failure. Appellant assigns as error the peremptory instruction for defendant.

The evidence shows that the appellee is a corporation, duly chartered, and operates an interurban railroad from Dallas to Sherman, Tex., by way of Plano and McKinney, in Collin county. Plano was made one of its substations, there being only four on the line, to-wit, Payne, Van Alstyne, Plano, and Jenkins. The Traction Company employed for each substation a day operator and a night operator. C. T. Reed was night operator at Plano at the time of the injury to appellant, and had been acting in that capacity for something more than a month at that time. Reed had no authority to employ help, and was instructed not to allow any one in the machinery room. A substation is a brick structure in which is located a ticket office and waiting room in one part of the building. In another part of the building was located what is called a “high tension room,” with, a switchboard and six switches, where the wires are admitted to the building, and in another part is located the vault, rotary, and other machinery where the electricity is transformed from a high voltage to a low voltage, and also from an alternating to a direct current, which is used in- propelling the cars. There are three wires that start out in the main power plant at McKinney, Tex., and run through and supply these substations. In the main room at Plano there is a big brick vault seven or eight feet high, twelve' feet long, and four feet wide. Over that vault are strung backward and forward several times three high-tension copper .wires, and they go around what is called “insulators,” made of porcelain, which support the wires. The wires are about seven feet above-the vault. These wires, when in use — that is to say, when the machinery is running or1 the cars are being operated — are charged with a voltage of electricity of about 19,000 volts. At about 1:30 a. m. the last ear reaches its destination at McKinney, and then it is the duty of the substation agent at Plano to close down the machinery, pull all the six switches which cut out the electric current from the high tension wires over the vault, and it then becomes the duty of said agent to clean up the machinery, including the dusting and cleaning of the said insulators and wires over the vault.

Gould, one of appellee’s witnesses, testified : O. T. Reed “had charge of this substation there at night, and directed the affairs-there and controlled the machinery at night, and looked after the cleaning up of it or having it cleaned up, and he looked after everything pertaining to the operation of the-machinery there at night. As a rule at night every one of these switches is pulled out, and they ought to be. It is the rule to pull them out, and they ought to perform that duty at night. The reason for that rule is for the purpose of getting things clean. We had to clean up at night because that is the only time when the machinery is closed down, and, when the machinery is running, we cannot clean it. If the dust gets too thick and it is very dirty, it is liable to cause arcing across the insulators.”

C. T. Reed testified: “As night operator *1088 I sold tickets, and done general office work, handled express and baggage. I bandied that ticket office and baggage just like any other person in charge of the ticket office. I sold tickets, made out reports, and sent the reports into the company. I had something to do with operating the trains up and down the line in taking orders or clearances. That was part of my duties. I sustained really the relation to that road that the dispatcher does to the railroad company. As night operator my duties also were to take charge of the machinery, the starting and stopping of •it, and doing necessary repairs that are in my power. The last train had gone north, and it became my duty to take charge of the machinery and clean it up where it was necessary, that is take the dust and dirt off the insulators and wires with a duster, and wiping with a rag where it was necessary to get ■the parts of the machinery clean. I felt rather inclement that evening, and Blalack was there, and I said to him: ‘Ab., what are .you going to do to-night. Anything?’ and he said, ‘No.’ And I said: ‘Would you help me to-night?’ and he said, ‘Yes.’ And I said: T am not feeling well to-night,’ and he said, '“Why, certainly.’ I believe that I did say that I would give him a quarter if he would help me. The reason I made arrangements with Mr. Blalack to assist me that night was because I felt unwell, and did not feel able to •do the work on the high tension.

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

Related

Nobles v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co.
24 S.W.2d 367 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1930)
Gagnon v. St. Maries Light & Power Co.
141 P. 88 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 S.W. 1086, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blalack-v-texas-traction-co-texapp-1912.