Temple v. McComb City Electric Light & Power Co.

42 So. 874, 89 Miss. 1
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by70 cases

This text of 42 So. 874 (Temple v. McComb City Electric Light & Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Temple v. McComb City Electric Light & Power Co., 42 So. 874, 89 Miss. 1 (Mich. 1906).

Opinion

Whitfield, C. J.,

delivered the' opinion of the court.

The citizens of a municipality have the right to the reasonable use of the streets, not only on their surface, but above their surface. Many uses of the streets, or the spaces above the streets, may be readily imagined in cities, where buildings are erected twenty to fifty stories high, that might not be available in an ordinary town. The corporations handling the dangerous' agency of electricity are bound, and justly bound, to the very highest measure of skill and care in dealing with these deadly agencies. The appellee had the right to such reasonable use of the streets for its poles and wires as the conditions existing at the time in the community warranted. On the other hand, the appellant had the reciprocal right to what was a reasonable use of the streets on his part. The rights of the appellant and the appellee are mutual and reciprocal. Neither could so use his own rights as to wantonly injure the other. These two correlative rights, if the law is obeyed, operate in perfect harmony with each other. There are no interferences, and no vacancies in the* sphere of their harmonious movement. »

The declaration shows that the tree in which this boy was injured, by contact with an uninsulated wire, was an oak tree, a little tree abounding in branches extending almost to the ground —just such a tree as the small boys of any community would be attracted to, and use, in their play. Whether this appellee knew that this particular small boy was in the habit of climbing this tree or not, it is clear from the averments of the declaration that it did know the tree, thfe kind of tree, .and, knowing that, knew [8]*8what any person of practical common sense would know — that it was just the kind of a tree that children might climb into to play in the branches. It is perfectly idle for the appellee to insist that it was not bound to have reasonably expected the small boys of the neighborhood to climb that- sort of tree. The fact that such boy would, in all probability, climb that particular tree, being the kind of tree it was, was a fact which, according to every sound principle of law and common sense, this corporation must have anticipated. The argument that it did not almost suggests the query whether the individuals composing this corporation, its employes and agents, had forgotten that they were once Small boys themselves. The immemorial habit of small boys to climb little oak trees filled with. abundant branches reaching almost to the ground is a habit of which corporations stretching their wires over such trees must take notice. This court, so far as the exertion of its power in a legitimate way is concerned, intends to exert that power so as to secure, at the hands of these public utility corporations, handling and controlling these extraordinarily dangerous agencies, the very highest degree of skill and care.

The judgment of the court below is, reversed, the demurrer overruled, and the cause remanded.

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

Related

Deborah McFarland v. Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Mississippi Supreme Court, 2003
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Lumpkin
725 So. 2d 721 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1998)
Dolata v. Ohio Edison Co.
441 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1981)
Hughes v. Star Homes, Inc.
379 So. 2d 301 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1980)
Mississippi Power and Light Co. v. Johnson
374 So. 2d 772 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1979)
TALLAHATCHIE VALLEY ELEC. POWER v. Clinton
347 So. 2d 348 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1977)
Alabama Power Company v. Taylor
306 So. 2d 236 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1975)
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Dulakey
123 So. 2d 845 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1960)
Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Garland
234 S.W.2d 753 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1950)
Pate v. Parker
177 P.2d 250 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1947)
Wise v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co.
34 N.E.2d 975 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1941)
Lamb v. Consumers Power Co.
281 N.W. 632 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1938)
Texas General Utilities Co. v. Nixon
81 S.W.2d 250 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Thornton v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.
72 S.W.2d 161 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1934)
Bourgoyne v. Louisiana Public Utilities Co.
150 So. 68 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1933)
Henry v. Mississippi Power & Light Co.
146 So. 857 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1933)
Mississippi Power Co. v. Thomas
140 So. 227 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1932)
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Compton
8 P.2d 249 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 So. 874, 89 Miss. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/temple-v-mccomb-city-electric-light-power-co-miss-1906.