Keefe v. Narragansett Electric Lighting Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Keefe v. Narragansett Electric Lighting Co.

43 A. 542, 21 R.I. 575, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 44

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 22, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 43 A. 542 (Keefe v. Narragansett Electric Lighting Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keefe v. Narragansett Electric Lighting Co., 43 A. 542, 21 R.I. 575, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 44 (R.I. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) We think that the verdict for defendant was properly directed. The testimony shows that the plaintiff, a girl about eleven years of age, climbed out of the window of the house in which she lived onto the jet of the adjoining house, and, while walking along the jet of the latter house, came in contact with certain electric wires owned by the tenant of that building, which were connected with the defendant’s wires, and she thereby, received the injury for which the suit was brought. We do not think that the action can be maintained : first, because the wires by which the plaintiff was injured were not the wires of the defendant; and, secondly, even if they had been, we fail to see that the defendant would have owed any duty to the plaintiff, since it could have had no reason to anticipate the act of the plaintiff in walking along the jet.

New trial denied, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment” for the defendant for costs.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) We think that the verdict for defendant was properly directed. The testimony shows that the plaintiff, a girl about eleven years of age, climbed out of the window of the house in which she lived onto the jet of the adjoining house, and, while walking along the jet of the latter house, came in contact with certain electric wires owned by the tenant of that building, which were connected with the defendant’s wires, and she thereby, received the injury for which the suit was brought. We do not think that the action can be maintained : first, because the wires by which the plaintiff was injured were not the wires of the defendant; and, secondly, even if they had been, we fail to see that the defendant would have owed any duty to the plaintiff, since it could have had no reason to anticipate the act of the plaintiff in walking along the jet.

New trial denied, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment” for the defendant for costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A. 542, 21 R.I. 575, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keefe-v-narragansett-electric-lighting-co-ri-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack