Skip to main content
· 5/6/1916

Snyder v. Leavenworth Light, Heat & Power Co.

Citations

  • 98 Kan. 157
  • 157 P. 442
  • 1916 Kan. LEXIS 36

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>Negligence — Electric Company — -Uninsulated Wires — Children Playing — Contact—Injuries. An electric company built and maintained a system of high-voltage wires about thirty feet above the ground along the street in a thickly populated portion of a city. When built, the wires were properly* insulated as the law requires, but the insulation had rotted so that the wires had been nearly bare for a number of years. A small wire with a stone attached had been thrown over the uninsulated wires of the company, and supposed to have been done by boys at play, but the evidence did not show by whom, how, or when the wire was thrown over those of the company. A boy sitting upon a coping upon the side of the street who had the small wire in his hand fell over, and a neighbor noticing that he did not move and that his clothes were on fire called for help. The plaintiff hearing the call hurried to the aid of the boy who was already dead, and upon touching him, she received an electric shock causing severe burns and other injuries. In an action brought by her, it was found that the destructive current escaped from the wires of the electric company through its negligence, that the plaintiff was injured when she went to the aid of the boy, as she had a right to .do, and it is held that the jury was warranted in finding that the throwing of the wire over the uninsulated wire was an act to be anticipated by the company, and against which it should have provided, that the negligence of the company was the proximate cause of the injury, and that under the evidence the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the injuries sustained by .her.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “It is a well-settled rule that any statements and comments in an opinion concerning some rule of law or debated legal proposition not necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand are, however illuminating, but obiter dicta and lack the force of an adjudication.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dawson, Johnston

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.