Walmsley v. Rural Telephone Ass'n

Citations

• 102 Kan. 139
• 169 P. 197
• 1917 Kan. LEXIS 236

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Negligence — Teléphone Wires Crossing Highway — Sufficiency of Evidence. Negligence in the maintenance of a telephone wire across a public highway is sufficiently established when it is shown that the • wire hung so low as to interfere with a customary use of the highway.</p> <p>2. Same — Injuries—Proximate Cause — Question for Jury. “Negligence, to be the proximate cause of an injury, must be such that a person of ordinary caution and prudence would have foreseen that some injury would likely result therefrom, not that the specific injury would result.” (Railway Co. v. Parry, 67 Kan. 515, syl. ¶ 2)’ 73 Pac. 105.)</p> <p>3. Samé — Telephone Wire Over Highway — Injuries—Prima Facie Case —Shifting of Burden of Proof. When a plaintiff has proved that he sustained injuries through the dangerous situation of a telephone wire hanging across a public highway, the burden passes to the defendant to show that the dangerous situation of the wire was not due to the act of the defendant and had not existed for such length of time as to charge the defendant telephone company with notice of its defective condition.</p> <p>4. Same — Trial—Record Examined — No Prejudicial Error. The pleadings, the evidence, the instructions given and refusdd, and the judgment, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained through the negligent maintenance of a telephone wire across a public highway, examined, and no prejudicial error discerned therein.</p>