Transportation Ins. Co. v. Clark

• Decision Date: 14 May 1962
• Citation: 116 Ohio App. 511,22 O.O.2d 346,189 N.E.2d 166
• Parties: , 22 O.O.2d 346 TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE CO. et al., Appellants, v. CLARK et al., Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 511

116 Ohio App. 511

189 N.E.2d 166, 22 O.O.2d 346

TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE CO. et al., Appellants, v. CLARK et al., Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County.

May 14, 1962.

John G. Rust and Edward Zoltanski, Toledo, for appellants.

Fuller, Harrington, Seney & Henry and Thomas L. Dalrymple, Toledo, for appellee Toledo Edison Co.

Charles J. Cole, Toledo, for appellee I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co. FESS, Judge.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment sustaining demurrers to the third amended petition on behalf of the defendant The Toledo Edison Company and the defendant I-T-E Circuit Breaker Company, and dismissing the action as to such defendants.

The action is brought against the defendant Clark and the corporate defendant recover upon a subrogation claim for property damage allegedly resulting from negligent acts of the several defendants resulting in a fire and consequent damage.

The question presented for determination upon this appeal, as against The Toledo Edison Company, is the liability of such company supplying current to a recently constructed residence for allegedly defective wiring in such premises installed by an electrical contractor resulting in a short circuit and consequent fire resulting in damages to the premises. In its third amended petition, after specifying the alleged defects in the wiring of the premises, plaintiff alleges that the current was brought to the premises by the defendant Edison Company having knowledge of such defects.

The duty and responsibility of a company generating and distributing electricity is generally held to be limited to making a proper connection and delivering the current to the purchaser's wires and appliances in a manner which, so far as such delivery is concerned, protects life and property, and there is no duty of inspection to see that the purchaser's wires and appliances are in a safe condition and kept so. Accordingly, where wiring or other electrical appliances on private premises are owned and controlled by the owner or occupant of such premises, a company which merely furnishes electricity is not responsible for the insulation or condition of such wiring or appliances and is not liable for injuries caused by their defective condition to the owner. 29 C.J.S., Electricity § 57, p. 611. And it is generally held that where electric wires or other appliances which have caused injury are not owned or controlled by the company furnishing the power, such company is not liable for the damage sustained. The company furnishing the current is not bound to inspect such lines, wires, and appliances to discover defects in insulation or other dangerous conditions. Therefore, unless the current is supplied with actual knowledge of defective conditions, responsibility ends when connection is properly made under proper conditions and it delivers the current in a manner which will protect both life and property. 18 American Jurisprudence, 498, Section 102.

While the weight of authority supports the foregoing rules, there are cases holding that it is the duty of the supplier of electricity to see that the wires and appliances of the customer are in proper condition safely to receive it, where the company has the right of access for the purpose of inspection at all times. 29 C.J.S. Electricity § 57, p. 612. However, regardless of the foregoing rule, knowledge of the defective and dangerous condition of a customer's appliances will charge the supplier of electricity with liability for consequences, where current is thereafter supplied to such defective and dangerous appliances, in which case it is the energizing of the line with knowledge of the conditions, and not the conditions themselves, which forms the basis of liability. 29 C.J.S. Electricity § 57, pp. 612, 613. See, also, 134 A.L.R. 507, 508; Smith's Admx. v. Middlesboro Electric Co. (1915), 164 Ky. 46, 174 S.W. 773; ...