68 P. 608 (Kan. 1902), 12,124, Consolidated Electric Light and Power Company v. Koepp
|Citation:||68 P. 608, 64 Kan. 735|
|Opinion Judge:||GREENE, J.:|
|Party Name:||CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY v. WILLIAM F. KOEPP, etc|
|Attorney:||Harkless, O'Grady & Crysler, and Moore & Berger, for plaintiff in error. John A. Hale, Horace G. Pope, and L. F. Bird, for defendant in error.|
|Judge Panel:||GREENE, J. DOSTER, C. J., SMITH, ELLIS, JJ., concurring.|
|Case Date:||April 05, 1902|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Kansas|
Decided January, 1902.
Error from Wyandotte court of common pleas; W. G. HOLT, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
PERSONAL INJURY -- Light and Telephone Wires -- Proximate Cause. The proximate cause of an injury is that which naturally leads to, and which might have been expected to be directly instrumental in, producing the result. Held, that permission by the plaintiff in error to R. to attach his private telephone wire to its electric-light poles was not the proximate cause of the injury sustained by defendant in error.
The plaintiff below sought to recover damages in this action for injuries which it is alleged he sustained by coming in contact with what is known as a live telephone wire.
The substance of the allegations in his petition is that the defendant, the Consolidated Electric Light and Power Company, in operating its plant in Kansas City, Kan., had its poles on and along Osage avenue running east and west from Ninth street to Ferree street; that it negligently permitted one John Radford to attach to and string along on its electric-light poles a private telephone wire about two feet below the electric wires, and negligently permitted an uninsulated [64 Kan. 736] electric-light wire to cross, or come in such close proximity with, said telephone wire at a point where said electric-light wire had become uninsulated that it transferred to the telephone wire a current of electricity which caused the Radford residence, into which the wire ran, to take fire, and that the fire caused the telephone wire to become detached from the house and fall to the ground on a vacant lot or common, where the plaintiff below, while going to the fire and without any fault on his part, ran on said telephone wire and received the injury of which he complains.
The evidence proves that Radford placed said telephone wire on the electric-light poles of the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP