Harris v. Decker

• Decision Date: 18 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 12224.,12224.
• Citation: 190 S.W. 969
• Parties: HARRIS v. DECKER et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

190 S.W. 969

HARRIS v. DECKER et al.

No. 12224.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 18, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County; Arch B. Davis, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by William Harris against J. M. Decker and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

E. L. Marshall and J. E. Watkins, both of Chillicothe, for appellant. E. C. Orr, of Chillicothe, for respondent Decker.

JOHNSON, J.

Plaintiff, a farmer, living five miles south of Dawn, a town in Livingston county, owned a private telephone line, which connected his residence with the telephone exchange operated by defendant Decker in that town. Plaintiff built his line of cedar poles along the public highways and, for a distance of three miles or more, it ran parallel to, and two or three feet away from, a telephone line on which Decker maintained some wires. The latter line had been in service 20 years, and during the period of 5 years which intervened between the building of plaintiff's line and the commencement of this suit, the old line, owing to the falling or displacement of rotten poles, frequently fell into such a state of ill repair as to cause the wires to become grounded and to cross the wires on plaintiff's line, thereby interrupting the service over both lines. The petition alleges that these injuries to plaintiff's line and service were caused by the negligence of defendants in failing to maintain their line in reasonable repair, and seeks to hold the defendant corporation liable on the ground that it was the owner of the old line, and the defendant Decker, on the ground that he maintained service wires on that line under an agreement with the owner to maintain the pole line in proper repair. The defendants answered separately, and the issues of fact tendered by the petition were tried and submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for both defendants. Plaintiff appealed.

The evidence, in its aspect most favorable to defendants, will support an inference that the occasional crossing of the wires on the two lines and the resultant interruptions to plaintiff's service were due to the close proximity of the two lines for which defendants, whose line was first constructed, were not responsible, and not to any neglect of defendants, or either of them, to keep the old line in proper repair. Since the jury were entitled to draw such an inference from all the evidence, there can be no merit in the suggestion of...