Waterbury Democrat., 1901-11-02
QUALITIES OF INSULATION.
Discussed in the Fitzgerald-Lighting
 Co Case by Opposing Attorneys.


 the superior court, of Timothy and John Fitzgerald father and son, against the Connecticut Railway ana Lighting company for S1O.OO0 for ln- iuries received by the former through contact with a live electric wire. were rather sensational Attorney John O'Neill. who made the final argu- ment, accused the defendant in the case of stealing from this city the franchise to run it's plant here. rms was brought about by some statements that were made by Attorney Brad street, counsel for the defendant in his argument. Senator Kennedy for the plaintiff opened. and Attorney Bronson for the defendant replied. Then came Attorney Bradstreet and 1 finally MT ONeill.
 Attorney Bradstreet said that the | mantle of lack of Knowledge of the | danger of contact with live electric wires should not be thrown over the l boy plaintiff, Johnny, as he was call l ed all through the case. A boy of ten | years Of age nowadays. he said. knows l as much as a man of p years did not many years ago. "This is to be seen in the curriculum of all of our schools. in our universities in all our | cloak of tender years should not be thrown over this boy A boy in the sixth grade of his school as Johnny is. knows as much of the dangers of l electricity and steam as does the av- craze man. Insulation does not insu- late. it does not give the protection that 1t is supposed to give. no matter what price may be paid for the goods. l Increasing danger needs increasing care and protection, but if man in l a balloon knocks against q live electric l wire. the owner of the wire cannot be i legally held responsible" Then MT l O'Neill followed. Replying to the pre- | viouS speakers statements regarding the man ill the balloon and the live wire and other dangers to which the public is constantly exposed. lie said that the law has got this matter of public danger down so fine that if man who is known to be an habitual inebriate is given drink by a saloon keeper, and that the former upon go- ing to his home does injury to his home or his family in consequence of the drink he has had, his family can recover damages from the saloon keeper, continuing the illustration. he sad that an open gate at a railroad crossing is an invitation to cross the tracks and an indication that there is no danger. Then, if insulation is un- safe, why is it put on the wires? This professor who testified said it is no protection Then, if it is not a pro- tecton, it is a deception, and why does not the company tell us so? The com pany knew there were 1000 volts of electricity passing through the wire that burned this boy, yet they took no pains to warn him of the danger. The bridge upon which he was is public
 property, and he has as much right fo
 De piaylng tag on it as the company . ilad 10 string their wires near if. They
 Knew there was danger in the bridge
 rom these wires being strung near
 H. everybody knew these boys were
 accustomed to play near it and Mpon
 It. but this company Think of if.
 your honor! Here is this company
 with twelve miles of trolley wire to : look after and goodness knows how many more miles of other kinds of
 electric wires. and not d man in their
 employ To protect the public from the , usthSers of leakages of electricity
 iney nave got machine to tell them
 whenever there is q leakage but not
 q hiith 10 watch it. They depend on , lie ahu every other man to tell them 7 Where the leakage is. This is what
 ti .,ils corporation does, this corporation enal stole the franchise from this city acre tne court interrupted, saying re
 Mir O'Neill that he could not lista :, .'
 the defendant being abused x
 Well, your honor.' renliad ,r, l U Nell Tn q lower key, but still a, t positive as before. that is what tbi, ] eohipahy has done for they did no ' pay q penny for it."
 f stlli that Is abusing the defendant
 MT ONeill. and that is not right,
 NIT ONeiil aDologized 10 the corr i, ana added that perhaps the legislatnr
 would pc the proper place to take th,
 accusation and he would like to tel the legislature so. Then ba contin ued Y lhiaglhe tllls company spends thou F sands Of dollars for one thine and on l olneF ana not penny to protect in pupllc rom the dangers of leaLa oes
 lhe question is, was Johnny contribu tory negligent? If Johnny was nlav ing tag on that bridge and I come alon and shot him. is lie contributory neo ligent in that case? Of course be,
 
 . and fell into the river he could not re cover from the town or the city. Th question is did he know that by toucl ing the wire he would have made circuit and thereby injured himself : Of course he did not. I did not knoy I it until Professor Roth testified tha : insulation did not give protection fror i live electric wires. Until then E thought that wire insulated was pel I fectly harmless. and I believe so nov
 for what is the use of putting this co, q ering over the wire if it does not giy IS protection z
 r. The rest of the argument was give q up mainly to law references and th e case was closed about 53O o'clock. q ACCIDENTALLY KILLED.