Small v. Southern Pub. Utilities Co
| Decision Date | 06 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 404.,404. |
| Citation | 158 S.E. 385 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SMALL. v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Schenek, Judge.
Action by J. R. Small against the Southern Public Utilities Company. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
No error.
Civil action to recover damages for destruction by fire of plaintiff's house alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in failing to take necessary precautions to protect the same when disconnecting electric service wires.
Plaintiff was the owner of a dwelling house in Gold Hill, Rowan county, equipped for electric light service which the defendant furnished. In May, 1929, the plaintiff moved out of his house, left the same vacant, paid the defendant its bill for electric current, and asked that the service be discontinued, meter taken out, wires disconnected, etc.
It is in evidence that the defendant failed to take the usual and customary precautions in disconnecting its wires, in that ends of live wires were left dangling inside the house near a wooden ceiling, whereas proper prudence and precaution required that such wires be cut outside the house so as to prevent the current from going inside. The defendant's evidence, on the other hand, was to the effect that the wires had been properly and safely disconnected.
Plaintiff's evidence further tends to show that during the evening of August 29, 1929, a severe electrical storm visited the community of Gold Hill, during which lightning struck the defendant's transmission lines, burnt out the transformer, caused heavy currents of electricity to be carried over the wires into a number of houses, including the plaintiff's, which was set on fire. The defendant's evidence, however, tends to prove that the fire arose from other causes.
Plaintiff contends that his house was destroyed because of the defective condition in which the defendant left its wires when it took out the meter and disconnected the electric service wires.
The jury answered the issue of negligence in favor of the plaintiff, and fixed the damages at $1,500. Judgment accordingly.
The defendant appeals, relying chiefly upon its demurrer to the evidence and motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit.
W. S. O'B. Robinson, Jr., of Charlotte, and R. M. Robinson, of Greensboro, for appellant.
Hines, Kelly & Boren, of Greensboro, for appellee.
The case was properly submitted to the jury on authority of what was said in Starr v. Tel. Co., 156 N. C. 435, 72 S. E. 484; Lawrence v. Power Co., 190 N. C. 664, 130 S. E. 735; Carpenter v. Power Co., 191 N. C. 130, 131 S. E. 400; McAllister v. Pryor, 187 N. C. 832, 123 S. E. 92, 34 A. L. R. 25; Shaw v. Public Service Corp., 168 N. C. 611, 84 S. E. 1010; Turner v. Power Co., 154 N. C. 131, 69 S. E. 767, 769, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 848; Harrington v. Com'rs of Town of Wadesboro, 153 N. C. 437, 69 S. E. 399, 401; Arrington v. Pinetops, 197 N. C. 433, 149 S. E. 549.
Due to the deadly and latently dangerous character of electricity, the degree of care required of persons, corporate or individual, furnishing electric light and power to others for private gain, has been variously stated. "The utmost degree of care, " was the language adopted and approved in Haynes v. Gas Co., 114 N. C. 203, 19 S. E. 344, 346, 26 L. R. A. 810, 41 Am. St. Rep. 786. "The danger is great, and care and watchfulness must be commensurate to it, " said Burwell, J., in delivering the opinion. And in Turner v. Power Co., supra, Hoke, J., used this language: "Owing to the very dangerous nature of electricity and the serious and often fatal consequence of negligent default in its control and use, the law imposes a very high degree of care upon companies who manufacture and furnish it."
Following are some of the various expressions found in the decisions: "Highest degree of care" (Ellis v. Power Co., 193 N. C. 357, 137 S. E. 163, 166); "highest degree of care in the maintenance and inspection" (Benton v. Public-Service Corp., 165 N. C. 354, 81 S. E. 448, 449); "high skill, the most consummate care and caution, and the utmost diligence and foresight * * * consistent with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meacham v. Southern Ry. Co
...on his part. Lee v. R. Co., supra. Due care, i. e, commensurate care under the circumstances, was required of both. Small v. Utilities Co, 200 N.C. 719, 158 S.E. 385. The accepted standard under varying conditions is the conduct of the reasonably prudent man. Cole v. R. Co, 211 N.C. 591, 19......
-
Lea v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
...likely to come in contact with its wires. ' Ellis v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 193 N.C. 357, 137 S.E. 163; Small v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 200 N.C. 719, 158 S.E. 385; Alford v. Washington, 238 N.C. 694, 78 S.E.2d We know of no law or decision, however, in this jurisdiction that re......
-
Rice v. City of Lumberton
...operation of its business, to avoid injury to those likely to come in contact with its wires.' And in Small v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 200 N.C. 719, 158 S.E. 385, 386, it is said that 'Due to the deadly and latently dangerous character of electricity, the degree of care required of p......
-
Mintz v. Town of Murphy
...operation of its business, to avoid injury to those likely to come in contact with its wires.' And in Small v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 200 N.C. 719, 158 S.E. 385, 386, it is said that, 'Due to the deadly and latently dangerous character of electricity, the degree of care required of ......