Weir v. Haverford Electric Light Co.

Citations

• 221 Pa. 611
• 70 A. 874
• 1908 Pa. LEXIS 538

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Electric light company — Degree of care — Contributory negligence — Comparative negligence.</p> <p>While companies furnishing electricity are held to the very highest degree of care practicable to avoid injury to persons who may be lawfully in proximity to their wires, such persons are not relieved from the consequences of their own neglect, nor are the companies liable'for accidents that were not in reason to be foreseen and guarded against.</p> <p>In an action against an electric light company to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband, no recovery can be had where the evidence shows that the deceased, a house painter, went upon a. roof to paint, that he was twice warned of danger from contact with the electric wires, but notwithstanding the warning he placed his hand-in such a position that it came in contact with a wire where the rubber covering was only off to the extent of an inch, and the wire itself was at this point securely fastened seven feet above any place from which it could be ordinarily reached. '</p> <p>The doctrine of comparative negligence has no recognition in Pennsylvania. Any negligence on the part of plaintiff that contributes to and is the proximate cause of his injury defeats his action. There can be no balancing or matching of degrees of'negligence.</p> <p>In an action against an electric light company to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband caused by contact with an exposed wire, where there is no evidence that the defendant maintained a common nuisance, or was guilty of'Wanton negligence, it is error for the trial judge in his charge to refer to the' negligence of the deceased as being “light” negligence, and that of the defendant as being “he.avy” negligence.</p>