Aument v. Pennsylvania Telephone Co.

Citations

• 28 Pa. Super. 610
• 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 254

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Telephone companies — Break of wire — Contact with electric light wire — Presumption—Evidence.</p> <p>As between a telephone company and one with whom it has no contract relation, no prima facie presumption of the company’s negligence is raised by proof that its wire broke under the strain of a sleet storm of great and unusual severity, and fell upon an electric light wire stretched on the same pole.</p> <p>In an action against a telephone company to recover damages for the death of a horse, it should not be submitted to the jury to determine that defendant was negligent in failing to maintain guard wires to prevent the telephone wires, in case of their falling, from coming in contact with electric light wires on the same pole, where there is no evidence that it was customary, or if not customary, that it was practicable for telephone companies to maintain guard wires under the circumstances of the case.</p> <p>Where a telephone wire breaks during a great and unusual sleet storm, and falls upon an electric light wire, strung on the same pole, the telephone company cannot be charged with negligence because it did not learn of and repair the break within an hour or an hour and a half after it occurred. In such a case notice to the electric light company is not notice to the telephone company.</p> <p>In an action against a telephone company to recover damages for killing a horse, it appeared that a telephone wire was strung on the poles which carried an electric light wire and that during a great and unusual sleet storm the telephone wire broke and fell upon the electric light wire, the end lodging in a pool of water in a gutter. The water became charged with electricity. Plaintiff’s employee led the horse through the pool without observing the wire lying in the water. Having rubber boots on, the man was not hurt, but the horse was killed. Held, that the court could not say as a matter of law that the employee was guilty of contributory negligence.</p>