St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-03-20
NOT TO BLAME.
Gas COmpany's Wires All Right I'm
der Present Ordinances.

Judge Kelly yesterday granted the
motion of the defendant and directed
verdict for the st. Paul Gas Light
company, in the suit of Theodore Kin
men to recover $4,000 damages for the
death of his fifteen-year-old son, Jo-
seph, by coming in contact with the
electric light wires on top of the Union
block last spring. After reviewing the
facts in the case, and the testimony of
the other boy, who was with Kinnen
at the time, to the effect that he had
told him not to NEEDLE with the boxes
into which the wires passed, Judge
Kelly says, in his ruling upon the mo-
ton:
The deceased was on the roof for his own
amusement. If we concede the company owed
to every one whom it could reasonably antici-
pate would be on this roof the duty of so
guarding its wires to render them reason
ably safe, ought it reasonably to have antici-
pated that this roof would ever become a
playground or recreation place for any one?
am inclined TO think not.
There has been proof tending to show that
no duty ever called any tenant or the employee
OF any tenant upon that roof, and while, per-
maps this defendant company must be held to
have had notice of the ordinary uses to which
roofs like this are devoted in this climate, it
ought not to be held to notice of extraordinary
unusual and unexpected uses to which it
might be put, unless, perhaps, in case the
roof should be used in the event of fire, for
escape therefrom.
speaking from humane STANDPOINT IN my
private judgment persons making use of cleo
tricity should use the highest degree of care
to safely guard it, so that injury could come
to none, not even to meddlers. But that is not
the law. The nearest approach TO it is in a
recent case, Haynes vs. Raleigh Gas Com
pany, ia, n. c. al, Am. st. Reps, 1861, where
it was held that an electric company stretch
ing it's wires over the public street should
use extraordinary care to make them practi-
cally harmless. But that was case where
the party injured was in the exercise of his
legitimate right to use the public street, and
was injured by taking hold of a wire that he
found lying upon said street.
There is another case, Clemens VS.. Louisiana
Electric Light Company, A La. Ann, 692, re-
ported also in 80 Am. st. Reps, 34S, which
was the case of an employee injured by reason
of the failure of the company to properly
insulate its wires. But in that case an ordi-
nance of the city requires such insulation.
There is not, as l am advised, any ordinance
of this city regulating these matters and
deem it a public duty to call the attention of
the common council to the propriety of reason
ably regulating by law the of electric
wires stretched over private property or over
the public streets and public places, to the
end that human life may be, far as pos
sible safe guarded.
But even if we concede that the proofs here
make out a case for the jury as to whether or
not the defendant was negligent towards the
deceased in the manner in which its wires
were placed on this roof the question still re-
mains, can the plaintiff recover under the
proofs in this case?
The deceased was boy Of ordinary capacity
and brightness and nearly sixteen years Of age.
1t is a matter OF common knowledge that
electricity is deadly agency. All people,
young and old, know this. 1t appears in the
testimony that this boy was of an inquisitive
nature and that he was not disposed to be ad
vised by others than his father. He undoubt-
eddy understood that he had no business med
ding with this box and with these wires.
am satisfied, under the evidence, that ver-
dict against this defendant could never be al
lowed to stand, however sad and deplorable
the death Of this young man.
The motion to instruct the jury is granted.