Adams v. United Light, Heat & Power Co.

Citations

• 69 Pa. Super. 478
• 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 113

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Electric light companies — Overcharged wire — Defect in an extension cord — Inspection of appliances not furnished by company.</p> <p>An electric light company is not bound to inspect and exercise continuous supervision over every appliance which a customer may see fit to use within a building to which the company furnishes light.</p> <p>In an action against an electric light company to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband, where it appears that deceased met his death by contact with an extension electric wire while working in the cellar of a building occupied by his employer, and the evidence shows that although the defendant, through a defect in a transformer, permitted its transmission wire to be overcharged, there would be no danger if the wires within the building were properly maintained, and there is also evidence that a defective extension wire which defendant had not installed, had been found grasped in the hand of the deceased, it is reversible error for the court to charge that the jury might entirely disregard the defect in the extension wire.</p> <p>In such a case it is not reversible error for the court to permit evidence to be admitted that by reason of the defective transformer, wires going into other buildings in the vicinity had been charged with an excessive current within a few days prior to the accident.</p>