Rushing v. Southern Public Utilities Co.

Clarkson, J. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, with every reasonable intendment and inference, we do not think the exception and assignment of error made by her to the judgment as in ease of nonsuit, can be sustained. Conceding, but not deciding, that the evidence was to the effect that the defendant was negligent in transmitting into the bouse “excessive voltage” over 110, the normal voltage, yet the plaintiff’s intestate, on the evidence introduced by her, was we think guilty of contributory negligence. Hendrix v. R. R., 198 N. C., 142. The high power line that goes to the transformer has approximately 2300 volts in it, and the transformer cuts it down to be distributed to the line going into residences, which is customarily 110 voltage. *436 The evidence on the part of plaintiff does not correspond with the allegations in the complaint. The plaintiff administratrix, the wife of deceased, testified, in part: “When I got to my husband in the basement his bach was lying on one wire, the one that was cut in two, and the pliers were in his right hand. His right hand was blistered from burns, and there was a blister right above his heart on the left side and one on his left arm and shoulder.” Plaintiff’s witness, H. J. Maille, an expert, testified in part: “Under the conditions described in the basement of this home, blisters or burns would indicate either a high voltage above normal, or a very heavy anchorage. (By heavy anchorage is meant the degree of dampness of the basement.) . . . The harm that one would receive from a current of electricity with his feet damp, or by standing on wet ground, depends on the depth of the dampness, the volume of the dampness. The dampness according to its volume amounts to so much resistance, according to the volume of water you have. . . . It is a fact well known and recognized by electricians generally that there are certain conditions under which men will be killed if they come in contact with 110 volts, but it is out of the ordinary for a person to be killed that way.” We think from the evidence the conditions mentioned existed in this case. W. II. Holt, witness for plaintiff, testified: “It was damp where he was lying.” The plaintiff’s intestate while standing on damp ground in the basement, cutting a live wire, uninsulated, with metal pliers and without turning the general switch off, and with his knowledge of the bungling manner or method of the set-up made by himself of this particular live wire, and other causes, we think constituted contributory negligence, and plaintiff cannot recover in this action. This case is not like McAllister v. Pryor, 187 N. C., 832, and kindred cases cited by plaintiff. The judgment of the court below is Affirmed.