Novak v. Borough of Ford City

• Decision Date: 09 April 1928
• Parties: NOVAK et al. v. BOROUGH OF FORD CITY.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

141 A. 496
292 Pa. 537

NOVAK et al.
v.
BOROUGH OF FORD CITY.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 9, 1928.

141 A. 497

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Armstrong County; J. Frank Graff, President Judge.

Action by Joseph Novak and another against the Borough of Ford City. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., and FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, and SADLER, JJ.

C. O. Morris and H. A. Heilman, both of Kittanning, for appellant.

E. O. Golden and Harry C. Golden, both of Kittanning, for appellees.

WALLING, J. Captain J. D. Ford gave a park site to the defendant borough, which it accepted, and erected therein a monument to his memory, which stands on a grass-covered mound, some 50 feet in diameter and five feet in height. Above the mound and near the monument, the borough strung an electric wire supported by poles and used in lighting the park, and when so doing it carried a current of 2,300 volts. While playing on this mound on the evening of April 26, 1925, Stanley Novak, the minor plaintiff, then about eight years of age, was seriously and permanently injured by coming in contact with this wire. The suit brought against the borough for damages thus sustained resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant has appealed.

In view of the verdict, we must accept the truth of the evidence for plaintiff; so doing, there is no cause for reversal. It appears the mound was used as a children's playground, over which the defendant had suffered this high-voltage wire to remain for months in such a sagged condition that it was only about 4 or 5 feet from the ground, and that the minor plaintiff, innocent of the danger, was hurt when he caught hold of the wire to pull it down for some little girls to swing upon. There was also some evidence that the insulation was worn from the wire at the place in question. The latter was controverted and is not important, for the proof indicated that contact with a wire carrying such a voltage would cause injury regardless of the insulation. It needs no argument to show that suffering a high-voltage wire to remain so near the ground in a place frequented by the public was evidence of negligence. Even conceding that the wire was 6 or 6 1/2 feet from the mound, as stated by a majority of defendant's witnesses, the question of negligence would still have been for the jury. The trial judge properly instructed them that electricity was a highly dangerous...