Cabral v. New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co.

188 N.E.2d 855, 345 Mass. 775
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 28, 1963
StatusPublished

This text of 188 N.E.2d 855 (Cabral v. New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cabral v. New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co., 188 N.E.2d 855, 345 Mass. 775 (Mass. 1963).

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of tort for damage by fire to a building and contents owned by the plaintiffs. There was evidence that during a snow storm with accompanying high winds a pole from which service wires carrying electricity came to the plaintiffs’ house was caused to lean away from the house about fifteen feet. This resulted in a stretching of the wires, one of which dropped to the ground. A short circuit occurred with a consequent flow of excess current from a transformer on a second pole located some ninety-nine feet from the first. The short circuit could have been generated by the broken wire coming in contact with the snow covered ground or because of an abnormal sag in the wires produced by snow accumulation on them. A fuse on the transformer which was supposed to blow under these conditions failed to do so and there was fed into the plaintiffs’ house and wiring system a charge approximating 2,300 volts for a period of fifteen minutes. This caused the fire. A motion for a directed verdict by the defendant was correctly denied. There was evidence on which the jury might have found the defendant negligent. It is not necessary to rely on such cases as Fitchburg Gas & Elec. Light Co. v. Samuel Evans Constr. Co. Inc. 338 Mass. 752. See St. Louis v. Bay State St. Ry. 216 Mass. 255, 257, and eases cited; Burns v. Holyoke St. Ry. 253 Mass. 443, 445. Whether the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence was for the jury. Rasmussen v. Fitchburg Gas & Elec. Light Co. 343 Mass. 515, 519.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rasmussen v. Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Co.
179 N.E.2d 907 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
St. Louis v. Bay State Street Railway Co.
216 Mass. 255 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Burns v. Holyoke Street Railway Co.
149 N.E. 127 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Co. v. Samuel Evans Construction Co.
157 N.E.2d 529 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 N.E.2d 855, 345 Mass. 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabral-v-new-bedford-gas-edison-light-co-mass-1963.