Scaife v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., No. WD

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtLOWENSTEIN
Citation637 S.W.2d 731
PartiesHenry J. SCAIFE and Esther Scaife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. 33077.
Docket NumberNo. WD
Decision Date15 June 1982

Page 731

637 S.W.2d 731
Henry J. SCAIFE and Esther Scaife, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.
No. WD 33077.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Western District.
June 15, 1982.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to
Supreme Court Overruled and Denied
Aug. 3, 1982.

Page 732

Charles C. Shafer, Jr., Kansas City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

William H. Woodson, Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne, Kansas City, for defendant-respondent.

Before NUGENT, P. J., and TURNAGE and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.

LOWENSTEIN, Judge.

Plaintiffs Henry and Esther Scaife appeal from the trial court's order sustaining defendant Kansas City Power and Light Company's motion for summary judgment. This cause of action arose when a car, involved in an apparent two car collision on 31st Street in Kansas City, Missouri, struck one of defendant's transformer poles, knocking the transformer loose and allegedly causing it to explode. In a deposition, Esther Scaife testified that she was in her home praying and went to a window in response to a loud noise she heard come from the street. She then saw a "lightning" flash from the direction of the pole and was knocked to the floor, causing her personal injury. Plaintiffs' home is at 3110 Chestnut, and the window in question is approximately 140 feet from the pole. The pole was located in defendant's permit area, two and one half feet from the curb of 31st Street. Plaintiffs' petition requested compensatory damages for Esther's injury and loss of consortium to Henry, and punitive damages. Defendant's answer was a general denial.

Plaintiffs' petition alleged negligence on the part of defendant in putting one of its electrical poles, with an attached transformer, "adjacent to one of the busiest streets in Kansas City where the likelihood of an errant automobile striking said transformer and causing electrical shock trauma was great and foreseeable," and by negligently failing "to provide safety devices to insulate the electrical transformer poles from the impact of automobiles traveling on the street next to the poles."

Summary judgment is not commonly granted in negligence cases. Under

Page 733

Rule 74.04(c), summary judgment is applicable when a party can show there is no genuine issue of a material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Although the party against whom a summary judgment is entered is entitled to review in a light most favorable to its cause, Johnson v. Givens...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Mrad v. Missouri Edison Co., Nos. 43234
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 15, 1983
    ...added) 2 It is clear the supplier of electricity must exercise the highest degree of care. Scaife v. Kansas City Power and Light Company, 637 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App.1982); Summers v. Union Electric Company, 565 S.W.2d 677, 680 (Mo.App.1978); Tellis v. Union Electric Company, 536 S.W.2d 742......
  • Grattan v. Union Electric Company, No. ED 82923 (Mo. App. 12/9/2003), No. ED 82923.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 9, 2003
    ...Goddard v. St. Joseph Light & Power Co., 379 S.W.2d 565, 567-68 (Mo. 1964); Scaife v. Kansas City Power Electric Light Co., 637 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App. 1982). However, an electric utility is not an insurer of public safety, and is not required to isolate or insulate its wires beyond wh......
  • Lawrence v. New York Life Ins. Co., Nos. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 1, 1983
    ...74.04(e) when the opposing party does not respond by a verified denial or counter-affidavits. Scaife v. Kansas City Power and Light Co., 637 S.W.2d 731 Concluding, as we do, that rules pertaining to adhesion contracts find no application here for want of tender of the issue, the question is......
  • Rothwell v. West Cent. Elec. Co-op., Inc., No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 15, 1992
    ...over the 6 or 8 inch curb, his car would never have collided with the pole. Id. at 62. In Scaife v. Kansas City Power and Light Company, 637 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App.1982), this court relied on Clinkenbeard. Under Scaife, the test is refined to whether it is reasonably foreseeable that a dri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Mrad v. Missouri Edison Co., Nos. 43234
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 15, 1983
    ...added) 2 It is clear the supplier of electricity must exercise the highest degree of care. Scaife v. Kansas City Power and Light Company, 637 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App.1982); Summers v. Union Electric Company, 565 S.W.2d 677, 680 (Mo.App.1978); Tellis v. Union Electric Company, 536 S.W.2d 742......
  • Grattan v. Union Electric Company, No. ED 82923 (Mo. App. 12/9/2003), No. ED 82923.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 9, 2003
    ...Goddard v. St. Joseph Light & Power Co., 379 S.W.2d 565, 567-68 (Mo. 1964); Scaife v. Kansas City Power Electric Light Co., 637 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App. 1982). However, an electric utility is not an insurer of public safety, and is not required to isolate or insulate its wires beyond wh......
  • Lawrence v. New York Life Ins. Co., Nos. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 1, 1983
    ...74.04(e) when the opposing party does not respond by a verified denial or counter-affidavits. Scaife v. Kansas City Power and Light Co., 637 S.W.2d 731 Concluding, as we do, that rules pertaining to adhesion contracts find no application here for want of tender of the issue, the question is......
  • Rothwell v. West Cent. Elec. Co-op., Inc., No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 15, 1992
    ...over the 6 or 8 inch curb, his car would never have collided with the pole. Id. at 62. In Scaife v. Kansas City Power and Light Company, 637 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App.1982), this court relied on Clinkenbeard. Under Scaife, the test is refined to whether it is reasonably foreseeable that a dri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT