Sebring v. Bell Telephone Co.
Citations
- 275 Pa. 131
- 118 A. 729
- 1922 Pa. LEXIS 464
Syllabus
<p>Negligence — Telephone companies — Live wires — Wire hanging over road — Evidence—Notice—Constructive notice — Contributory negligence — Infants—Proximate cause.</p> <p>1. Electricity is a dangerous agency and those employing it are required to exercise the highest practical degree of care.</p> <p>2. The duty to inspect electric wires is clear, and failure to perform it negligence.</p> <p>3. Where there is ample proof of constructive notice of a dangerous wire hanging over a street, the question of actual notice, on conflicting testimony, becomes unimportant.</p> <p>4. Suffering a telephone wire long to remain broken and hanging down in a street, where, from natural causes or from the playing of •children, it might be brought in contact with a live trolley wire, is an act of negligence which will render the telephone company liable for an injury caused thereby to a child too young to appreciate the danger.</p> <p>5. Where boys come suddenly upon such a wire in their path at night without previous knowledge of its presence, they are not bound to anticipate the company had left it in a dangerous condition. The question of their contributory negligence is for the jury.</p> <p>6. In such case, Where it appears that the boys either pushed or pulled the hanging wire until it came in contact with a live trolley wire, the question of proximate cause is for the jury.</p> <p>7. The court cannot say as a matter of law whether or not there was such independent intervening agency as necessarily broke the causal connection between defendant’s negligence and the accident.</p> <p>Negligence — Damages—Excessive verdict — Instructions—No request for additional instructions.</p> <p>8. Where the entire subject of damages in a negligence case was submitted by a request of defendant covering in a general way the entire subject of damages, which request was affirmed, and no additional instructions were asked, the defendant cannot, on appeal, complain as to the inadequacy of the charge
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reading the provision requiring notice to the insurer as requiring “notice of a ‘phantom’ vehicle’s participation in the accident”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Frazer, Kephart, Moschzisker, Sadler, Schaffer, Simpson, Walling
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.