OCR Text |
Show 00 DEATH OF A BOY IS RECALLED BY A DECISION The Utah supremo court today announced an-nounced its decision affirming the judgment rendered in the court of Judge N. J. Harris in March, 1914, in favor of Mrs. Orene Hoggo as administratrix ad-ministratrix of the estate of her husband, hus-band, Lawkrence Hogge, against the Salt Lake and Ogden Railway company compa-ny for the sum of $5000. The opinion opin-ion of the court was written by Justice Jus-tice McCarty and concurred in by Justice Jus-tice Frick, who, however, wrote a soparateconcurring opinion. Chief Justice Straup wrote a dissenting opinion. It will be recalled that in June, 1911, the Merchants . Light & Power company was building a sub-station to the north of the substation of tho Salt Lake & Ogden Railway company at Thirty-first street and Lincoln avenue. ave-nue. C. J. Humphris, the contractor, had the general contract and had sublet the brick and concrete work to Jackson and Lovedahl. Law rence Hogge, then 19 years old, was employed by Jackson and Lovendahl, and, at the time he came in contact with one of tho railway company's thousand volts of eloctrlclty, was on the roof of the railway company's sub-station assisting in removing the fire wall which projected above the roof. When the noon whistle blew, June 28, 1911, young Hogge left his place of work and went toward a ladder lad-der which lead to the ground He did not touch one of tho high tension wires crossing the roof and wliich also lead downward through tho roof Into the sub-station but came so close to the uninsulated wire as to receive a disruptive discharge of electricity He was badly burned and died of his injuries the same day at the Dee hospital. hos-pital. He had been married about three months previously to Miss Orene Eklns, a daughter of Henry Ekins, of Slatervllle, and after his death, a son was born to Mrs. Hogge. The case was originally brought against the Salt Lake & Ogden Railway Rail-way company, the Merchant Light & Power company, C. J. Humphris and Jackson & Lovedahl, but during the trial was dismissed as to the latter three. Judge Harris granted the light company's motion for a non-suit and the case thereupon went to the jury as against the railway company and a verdict of $5000 was returned. A motion for a new trial was made and denied ny juuge nama. aueu. the case was appealed to the State supreme court and was argued and submitted for decision In October, The Railway company claimed that Jackson & Lovedahl were what Is termed independent contractors and. Inasmuch as they were doing the work and young Hogge was employed by them, that there was no relation of matter and servant between the railway company and young Hogge, and that the railway company was not at all liable. The plaintiff contended that the railway company know of tho work to he done in connection with tho building build-ing of the light and power company, for there had previously been a con tract entereo. mu uchtucu w .-.. way company and the light and power company; that the railway company was presumed to know that men In doing the work In question might be required to go up the room of the railway rail-way company's sub-station and come m cloBe proximity to its high tension wires, that young Hogge was upon the sub-station roof as tho invitee of tho railwav company and that therefore there-fore the railway company owed him tho direct duty of warning him of the dangers there existing and of protecting pro-tecting he and other workmen therefrom there-from by a rope or barrier or a sign, none of which waB done. Judge Harris Har-ris sustained the contentions of Mrs. Hogge's attorneys and such notion upon tho part of Judge Harris is now sustained by tho stnte supreme court. 00- |