Electric Railway Co. v. Shelton

89 Tenn. 423
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 6, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 89 Tenn. 423 (Electric Railway Co. v. Shelton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Electric Railway Co. v. Shelton, 89 Tenn. 423 (Tenn. 1890).

Opinion

Turney, Ch. J.

Shelton’s horse was killed by coming in contact with a wire of the telegraph and telephone company, which had fallen across the trolley-wire of the electric railway company. The wire of the telephone company had become much impaired. The falling of a wall of a burning building broke a pole of the telephone company, breaking the wires at several points. At the [425]*425point of the accident the telephone wires ' crossed the railway track above the trolley. A broken wire fell across the trolley-wire, and while resting on it the horse came in contact with it and was instantly killed. There was no guard-wire over the trolley-wire. The case was tried by the Circuit Judge without the intervention of a jury. The condition of the telephone wire was such as to arrest the attention of a prudent man engaged in the business of either company. The Circuit Judge found, under the facts, that both companies were guilty of negligence and responsible for the loss, and gave judgment accordingly. The judgment is correct. •’While it was the primary duty of the telephone company to see that its wires were in a reasonably safe and sound condition, and protected against the contingency of falling, it was also the duty of the electric company to see that its trolley-wire was in like manner protected from such contingency. While it was the duty of • the one company not to use unsound and unprotected wires, it was equally the duty of the other not to operate its road under such defective machinery. It might as well insist that it was not responsible for damages resulting from the fall of a rock which it had constantly recognized as threatening to fall’, or of a dead tree which it had frequently noticed with decayed and giving roots, and knew would fall in the first wind or rain. The obligation to see that its road was in good repair, and its machinery in safe operating order, is not con[426]*426fined, to the immediate and abstract presence of either, but extends to all surroundings that may depreciate the security of either. Both companies knew of the unprotected trolley-wire, and the consequences of a contact of the wires of the one with those of the other. Both knew of the unsoundness likely to produce a fall of the one upon those of the other. Both were bound to guard against such likelihood, .and, having failed to do so, are liable.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Cooley v. Public Service Co.
10 A.2d 673 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1940)
Alabama Power Co. v. McIntosh
122 So. 677 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Cecil v. Jernigan
4 Tenn. App. 80 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1927)
Morris v. Sierra & San Francisco Power Co.
207 P. 262 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Bristol Telephone Co. v. Weaver
146 Tenn. 511 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1921)
Tennessee Central Railroad v. Vanhoy
143 Tenn. 312 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1920)
Nashville Interurban Ry. v. Gregory
137 Tenn. 422 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1916)
Freeman v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Co.
142 S.W. 733 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Olson v. Nebraska Telephone Co.
123 N.W. 422 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1909)
Walton, Witten & Graham v. Miller's Administratrix
63 S.E. 458 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1909)
Feneff v. Boston & Maine Railroad
82 N.E. 705 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Mahan v. Newton & Boston Street Railway Co.
75 N.E. 59 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Parsons v. Charleston Consolidated Ry., Gas & Electric Co.
48 S.E. 284 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1904)
Daltry v. Media Electric Light, Heat & Power Co.
57 A. 833 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Burton Telephone Co. v. Gordon
15 Ohio C.C. Dec. 641 (Geauga Circuit Court, 1904)
Swain v. Tennessee Copper Co.
111 Tenn. 430 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1903)
Beopple v. Railroad
58 S.W. 231 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1900)
City Electric Street Railway Co. v. Conery
31 L.R.A. 570 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1895)
McKay & Roche v. Southern Bell Telephone Co.
111 Ala. 337 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 Tenn. 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/electric-railway-co-v-shelton-tenn-1890.