Parshall v. Lapeer Gas-Electric Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Parshall v. Lapeer Gas-Electric Co.

199 N.W. 599, 228 Mich. 80, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 743

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 24, 1924

DocketDocket No. 28.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 199 N.W. 599 (Parshall v. Lapeer Gas-Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parshall v. Lapeer Gas-Electric Co., 199 N.W. 599, 228 Mich. 80, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 743 (Mich. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, C. J.

Defendant’s hot, bare, electric wire, about 20 feet above ground, passed through the top of a hickory tree standing on the roadside. The tree belonged to the abutting proprietor. Plaintiff, an adult, a trespasser, climbed the tree to take nuts. He came in contact with the wire, and was injured. In directing a verdict, on which judgment was entered, the trial judge said:

“In order that the plaintiff may recover in this case it would be necessary for him to show that the defendant neglected to discharge some duty that it owed him. At the time the plaintiff in this case was injured he was a trespasser by going into the tree for the purpose of gathering nuts without the consent of the owner of the tree, and being a trespasser, it is the opinion of the court that the defendant owed him no duty with reference to providing against injury to him.”

Plaintiff brings error.

As to the effect of the fact, in such cases, that the injured person was a trespasser, the authorities are about evenly divided. Michigan is classed with those holding as did the trial judge in the case at bar. See 14 A. L. R. 1038-1040, citing McCaughna v. *82 Electric Co., 129 Mich. 407 (95 Am. St. Rep. 441), which case is here controlling. And see McCaffrey v. Electric Co., 80 N. H. 45 (114 Atl. 395) ; Brown v. Power Co., 137 Ga. 352 (73 S. E. 580); Minter v. Electric Co., 180 Cal. 723 (182 Pac. 749).

Judgment affirmed.

McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.

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

Clark, C. J.

Defendant’s hot, bare, electric wire, about 20 feet above ground, passed through the top of a hickory tree standing on the roadside. The tree belonged to the abutting proprietor. Plaintiff, an adult, a trespasser, climbed the tree to take nuts. He came in contact with the wire, and was injured. In directing a verdict, on which judgment was entered, the trial judge said:

“In order that the plaintiff may recover in this case it would be necessary for him to show that the defendant neglected to discharge some duty that it owed him. At the time the plaintiff in this case was injured he was a trespasser by going into the tree for the purpose of gathering nuts without the consent of the owner of the tree, and being a trespasser, it is the opinion of the court that the defendant owed him no duty with reference to providing against injury to him.”

Plaintiff brings error.

As to the effect of the fact, in such cases, that the injured person was a trespasser, the authorities are about evenly divided. Michigan is classed with those holding as did the trial judge in the case at bar. See 14 A. L. R. 1038-1040, citing McCaughna v. *82 Electric Co., 129 Mich. 407 (95 Am. St. Rep. 441), which case is here controlling. And see McCaffrey v. Electric Co., 80 N. H. 45 (114 Atl. 395) ; Brown v. Power Co., 137 Ga. 352 (73 S. E. 580); Minter v. Electric Co., 180 Cal. 723 (182 Pac. 749).

Judgment affirmed.

McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 N.W. 599, 228 Mich. 80, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parshall-v-lapeer-gas-electric-co-mich-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack