Grossheim v. Pittsburgh & Allegheny Telephone Co.

Citations

• 255 Pa. 382
• 100 A. 126
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 462

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Telephone companies — Brolcen wire — Notice-^-Injury to pedestrian — Contributory negligence — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. A telephone company is entitled to reasonable time and opportunity to discover and repair defective wires; what is a reasonable time must necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case.</p> <p>2. The fact of the break of a telephone wire, although it does not carry electric current of sufficiently high voltage to be dangerous unless it comes in contact with other wires, is notice that it might become dangerous and imposes the duty of examination, and whether such duty had properly been met under all the circumstances, the lapse of time, the condition and population of the neighborhood, the urgency of the possible danger, etc., are questions for .the jury.</p> <p>3. A person injured as a result of coming in contact with such wires is entitled to the benefit of every inference fairly deducible from the testimony submitted in his favor.</p> <p>4. In an action against a telephone company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of the plaintiff, an eight-year-old boy, coming in contact with a fallen wire, heavily charged with electricity, the case was for the jury and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained where it appeared that a storm occurred between three and five o’clock in the afternoon, causing the wire in question, which was of small voltage, to break, and fall over a trolley wire of high voltage; that the remainder of the evening was clear; that it was the custom of defendant to test all wires immediately after a storm; that other wires on defendant’s system were tested immediately after the storm in question, but such wire, was not tested until the following morning when plaintiff was injured ; and that had the wire been tested the break could have been discovered.</p>