Salt River Valley Water Users' Association v. Compton
Decision Date | 16 February 1932 |
Docket Number | Civil 3105 |
Citation | 8 P.2d 249,39 Ariz. 491 |
Parties | SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION, a Corporation, Appellant, v. JAMES COMPTON, By and Through JAMES W. COMPTON, His Guardian Ad Litem, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. A. S. Gibbons, Judge. Judgment reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Messrs Kibbey, Bennett, Gust, Smith & Rosenfeld, for Appellant.
Messrs McNabb & DeCamp, for Appellee.
James Compton, a minor, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit by and through James W. Compton, his guardian ad litem, against Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, a corporation, hereinafter called defendant, to recover damages alleged to have been incurred by plaintiff through receiving an electric shock from certain high-power transmission lines belonging to defendant. A general demurrer to the original complaint was argued and overruled, but shortly before the date set for trial an amended complaint was filed which, after the court had ruled on various motions, was reduced to substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. After the usual formal matters in regard to the character of plaintiff and defendant, the complaint continues as follows:
The issues were tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $25,000, and after the usual motion for new trial was overruled, the case was brought before us in this appeal.
Plaintiff contends most strenuously in his brief "that we are basing this suit on common law negligence," while defendant insists with equal earnestness that the complaint can be sustained only on the theory that it sets up an action for maintaining what is called an "attractive nuisance." The two matters are so interwoven in argument that we think it best to discuss both theories of the case.
The law in regard to the proper handling of electric currents is of comparatively recent development, and is still to a great extent in its formative period. The decisions on the subject are in apparent hopeless contradiction, and cases can be found supporting almost any view as to the extent of the responsibility of those engaged in dealing with such currents. We think the best rule in regard to the care necessary in handling high-power transmission lines may be stated as follows:
"Those engaged in transmitting such a dangerous force as electricity, which gives no warning of its presence and is not apparent to the senses, are required to exercise a degree of care in constructing and maintaining the wires over which it is transmitted commensurate with the danger to be apprehended from contact with such wires or the escape of electricity therefrom; but they are not insurers against accidents or injuries." See Bunten v. Eastern Minnesota Power Co., 178 Minn. 604, 228 N.W. 332.
It is in the application of this rule to the facts of the particular case that the difficulty lies.
Actionable negligence may be of two kinds, either statutory or common law. Where a valid statute, enacted for the public safety, or governmental regulations made in pursuance thereof, provide that a certain thing must or must not be done, if a failure to comply with the regulations is the proximate cause of injury to another, such failure is actionable negligence per se. Schell v. Dubois, 94 Ohio St. 93, L.R.A. 1917A 710, 113 N.E. 664; Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 12 Am. St. Rep. 698, 41 N.W. 543. So far as we know there is no statutory regulation forbidding defendant to maintain as a part of its high power electrical transmission system steel or iron poles or towers of the kind described in plaintiff's complaint as the one upon which he was when he came in contact with the wires carrying the electric current. It is true the Arizona corporation commission has adopted through its amended General Order No. 37 the National Electric Safety Code, published by the Federal Bureau of Standards, and that the pole in question does not comply with the standards set up therein. It was agreed, however, by plaintiff and defendant at the trial in the lower court that defendant is not one of the classes of corporations covered by said amended General Order No. 37, and that the order does not apply to it. There is, therefore, nothing in the record showing that the defendant is guilty of statutory negligence.
The second question is as to common-law negligence. This may be defined as follows:
See Baltimore & P.R.R. Co. v. Jones, 95 U.S. 439, 24 L.Ed. 506, and Morenci Southern Ry. Co. v. Monsour, 21 Ariz. 148, 185 P. 938.
Tested by this definition, is there any common-law negligence alleged in plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Afton Electric Co. v. Harrison
...8 P.2d 249. This latter case is of particular interest, since it involved facts somewhat similar to the case at bar. The attraction in the Salt River case was a bird's nest, which the climbed the pole to remove. In the present case, as disclosed by the evidence, Mack Harrison climbed the po......
-
Salt River Valley Water Users' Association v. Compton ex rel. Compton
...appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. A. S. Gibbson, Judge. Motion denied. For former opinion, see 39 Ariz. 491, 8 P.2d 249. Kibbey, Bennett, Gust, Smith & Rosenfeld, for Appellant. Messrs. McNabb & DeCamp, for Appellee. OPINION LOCKWOOD, J. Counsel for pla......
-
Edwards v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
...77 S.Ct. 825, 1 L.Ed.2d 856 (1957); Musser v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 122 W.V. 365, 9 S.E.2d 524 (W.V.1940); Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Compton, 39 Ariz. 491, 8 P.2d 249, aff'd on rehearing, 40 Ariz. 282, 11 P.2d 839 (Ariz.1932); McDonald v. Shreveport Rys. Co., 174 La. 1023, 142......
-
Caraglio v. Frontier Power Co., 4267.
...Corp., 42 Cal.App.2d 641, 109 P.2d 720; Mares v. New Mexico Public Service Co., 42 N.M. 473, 82 P.2d 257; Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Compton, 39 Ariz. 491, 8 P.2d 249; Miller v. Suburban Power Co., 41 Ohio App. 70, 179 N.E. 202. 5 Conowingo Power Co. v. State of Maryland, 4 Cir......