Blankette v. Public Service Co. of Colorado
| Decision Date | 28 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | 12587. |
| Parties | BLANKETTE et al. v. PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Boulder County; Robert G. Smith, Judge.
Action by Peter Blankette and another against the Public Service Company of Colorado. Judgment for defendant dismissing the action, and plaintiffs bring error.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Morrissey, Mahoney & Scofield and Harold G. King all of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Goss & Hutchinson, of Boulder, for defendant in error.
In an action brought by Peter and Leah Blankette against the Public Service Company of Colorado, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for a nonsuit, and thereupon dismissed the action. To the judgment of dismissal, the plaintiffs sued out this writ of error.
The plaintiffs sued for damages for the destruction of their dwelling house by fire, caused, they say, by negligence on the part of the defendant.
The evidence was to the following effect: The defendant furnished electricity to light the plaintiff's dwelling house near Louisville. The current was carried from the defendant's transmission line by means of two service wires running from a pole in front of the house to the northeast corner of the house, to which the wires were attached by means of wooden pegs capped with glass insulators; thence the wires went into the attic, thence down through the attic floor to an electric meter, and from the meter, through a fuse box, to the various rooms in the house. When they were installed, the wires were placed about thirteen inches apart where they entered the house, and about four inches apart where they 'came down to the meter.' The meter, and the wires from the pole to the meter, were installed by the defendant. The wires from the meter to the several rooms were installed by an electrician employed by the plaintiffs.
About 10 o'clock in the morning of March 25, 1928, during a severe windstorm, which commenced an hour Before, a transmission line pole next to the one in front of the house was broken off at the base. The pole was old and 'practically all rotten.' After breaking, it was held suspended by the wires, and swayed back and forth, causing the pole in front of the house to move, thereby throwing a strain on the two service wires running to the house. The pull on the wires was so strong that it caused the meter to move. At the same time there was heard a 'pulling and breaking noise' in the corner where the wires went into the attic. That noise continued until the fire was discovered, at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon. The electric lights in the house would burn at 10 o'clock in the morning, but would not burn at 11 o'clock, although at that hour the neighbors' electric lights would burn. The electrician who did the wiring for the plaintiffs testified that he installed the wiring and fixtures in the way that they should have been installed. The only stove that connected with the chimney was in the kitchen. There had been no fire in the stove since about 6:30 o'clock in the morning, which was long Before the wind arose. The fire that destroyed the house did not start near the chimney, but at the place where the defendant's wires entered the attic. The chimney was of brick, and was newly plastered in 1923. There was no lightning that day, and there was no other fire in the neighborhood, except one caused by sparks or brands from the plaintiffs' burning house. The plaintiffs had never had any trouble with the electricity until the house caught fire. The plaintiffs did not know whether or not, when the fire started, the wooden pegs were still fastened to the house, or whether or not, at that time the wires were still fastened to the glass insulators. The electrician testified that, if there had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Idaho State AFL-CIO v. Leroy
... ... Page 1134 ... [110 Idaho 696] principles of public policy and the freedom of action by the executive within the ... proposition, defendants cite language from the courts of Oregon, Colorado, and Oklahoma and include courts from six other states in a string ... ...
-
Smith v. Home Light and Power Co.
...41 P. 499, 501 (1895). Accord Federal Insurance Co. v. Public Service Co., 194 Colo. 107, 570 P.2d 239 (1977); Blankette v. Public Service Co., 90 Colo. 456, 10 P.2d 327 (1932). The jury in the present case was properly instructed as to Home Light and Power's duty of care, and it returned a......
-
Buchholz v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...appears that a prima facie case or defense has been established. Westwood v. Richards, 109 Colo. 17, 122 P.2d 247; Blankette v. Public Service Co., 90 Colo. 456, 10 P.2d 327; La Fitte v. City of Fort Collins, 42 Colo. 293, 93 P. A test frequently applied is thus stated in the case of In re ......
-
Blueflame Gas, Inc. v. Van Hoose
...the particular art." Accord Federal Insurance Co. v. Public Service Co., 194 Colo. 107, 570 P.2d 239 (1977); 10 Blankette v. Public Service Co., 90 Colo. 456, 10 P.2d 327 (1932). There are other substances that, due to the gravity of the risk created by them, require an enhanced measure of ......