Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co.

75 S.E.2d 766, 237 N.C. 693, 1953 N.C. LEXIS 702

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 6, 1953

Docket599

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 75 S.E.2d 766 (Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co., 75 S.E.2d 766, 237 N.C. 693, 1953 N.C. LEXIS 702 (N.C. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

EeviN, J.

We take it for granted without so adjudging for the purpose of this particular appeal that the Tidewater Power Company was charged with notice that children were in the habit of flying kites in the vicinity of the high voltage wires by the mere circumstance that the observable remnants of a kite were hanging on the wires during several weeks next preceding the tragedy. We are nevertheless constrained to affirm the compulsory nonsuit. It is a matter of common knowledge that *695 children ordinarily use strings, which are nonconductors of electricity, in flying kites. Watral’s Adm'r v. Appalachian Power Co., 273 Ky. 25, 115 S.W. 2d 372; Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co., 193 Wash. 51, 74 P. 2d 898. The evidence at the trial did not disclose any facts sufficient to charge the Tidewater Power Company with notice that a metal wire might be put to such a use. In consequence, the tragedy was not within the reasonable anticipation of the Tidewater Power Company. Stanley v. Smithfield, 211 N.C. 386, 190 S.E. 207; Parker v. R. R., 169 N.C. 68, 85 S.E. 33; Caraglio v. Frontier Power Co., 192 F. 2d 175; Croxton v. Duke Power Co., 181 F. 2d 306; Garrett v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 218 Ark. 575, 237 S.W. 2d 895; Callaway v. Central Georgia Power Co., 43 Ga. App. 820, 160 S.E. 703; Dilley v. Iowa Public Service Co., 210 Iowa 1332, 227 N.W. 173; Fredericks’ Admr. v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 276 Ky. 13, 122 S.W. 2d 1000; Watral’s Adm’r v. Appalachian Power Co., supra; Kelley v. Texas Utilities Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 115 S.W. 2d 1233; Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co., supra; 18 Am. Jur., Electricity, section 53; 29 C.J.S., Electricity, section 42.

The cases invoked by the plaintiff, to wit, Benton v. Public-Service Corporation, 165 N.C. 354, 81 S.E. 448, and Ferrell v. Cotton Mills, 157 N.C. 528, 73 S.E. 142, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 64, are distinguishable.

Affirmed.

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

EeviN, J.

We take it for granted without so adjudging for the purpose of this particular appeal that the Tidewater Power Company was charged with notice that children were in the habit of flying kites in the vicinity of the high voltage wires by the mere circumstance that the observable remnants of a kite were hanging on the wires during several weeks next preceding the tragedy. We are nevertheless constrained to affirm the compulsory nonsuit. It is a matter of common knowledge that *695 children ordinarily use strings, which are nonconductors of electricity, in flying kites. Watral’s Adm'r v. Appalachian Power Co., 273 Ky. 25, 115 S.W. 2d 372; Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co., 193 Wash. 51, 74 P. 2d 898. The evidence at the trial did not disclose any facts sufficient to charge the Tidewater Power Company with notice that a metal wire might be put to such a use. In consequence, the tragedy was not within the reasonable anticipation of the Tidewater Power Company. Stanley v. Smithfield, 211 N.C. 386, 190 S.E. 207; Parker v. R. R., 169 N.C. 68, 85 S.E. 33; Caraglio v. Frontier Power Co., 192 F. 2d 175; Croxton v. Duke Power Co., 181 F. 2d 306; Garrett v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 218 Ark. 575, 237 S.W. 2d 895; Callaway v. Central Georgia Power Co., 43 Ga. App. 820, 160 S.E. 703; Dilley v. Iowa Public Service Co., 210 Iowa 1332, 227 N.W. 173; Fredericks’ Admr. v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 276 Ky. 13, 122 S.W. 2d 1000; Watral’s Adm’r v. Appalachian Power Co., supra; Kelley v. Texas Utilities Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 115 S.W. 2d 1233; Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co., supra; 18 Am. Jur., Electricity, section 53; 29 C.J.S., Electricity, section 42.

The cases invoked by the plaintiff, to wit, Benton v. Public-Service Corporation, 165 N.C. 354, 81 S.E. 448, and Ferrell v. Cotton Mills, 157 N.C. 528, 73 S.E. 142, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 64, are distinguishable.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 S.E.2d 766, 237 N.C. 693, 1953 N.C. LEXIS 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pugh-v-tidewater-power-co-nc-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack