Storm v. Leavenworth Light, Heat & Power Co.

Citations

• 102 Kan. 40
• 169 P. 556
• 1917 Kan. LEXIS 215

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Electricity — Uninsulated Wires — Contact with Boy — Death—Negligence for Jury. Following Snyder v. Light Co., 98 Kan. 157, 157 Pac. 442, it is held that where a company transmits high-voltage electricity along the streets of a city by wires on which insulation is not maintained, the question whether it ought to anticipate that loose wires, or other articles capable of serving as a. conductor, might come in contact with its lines, so as to endanger persons on the street or sidewalk, is a question of fact to be determined by the court or jury trying the case ' in which it arises.</p> <p>2. Same — Duty of Company to Anticipate Danger — Instruction. An instruction which taken alone might seem to indicate that as a matter of law the company was bound to such anticipation held not to have been prejudicial because of other explicit instructions covering the matter.</p> <p>8. Same — Evidence—Finding. A finding of fact held to have been supported by the evidence.</p> <p>4. Same — Finding Not Supported by Evidence. A finding to the effect that a loose wire had been in contact with the wires of an electric-light company so long that it ought to have discovered it before the occur- ■ rence of an accident, held not to have been supported by the evidence, but to have been non prejudicial.</p> <p>5. Same — Finding of Negligence Construed. A finding that the company’s wires would not have injured any one using the streets in an ordinary way, or in a way reasonably to have been foreseen, held not to mean that the throwing of a loose wire across them could not have been anticipated by the exercise of ordinary caution.</p>