Boomer v. Southern California Edison Co.

HAHN, J.,

pro

tem.

The case before us for review is one wherein plaintiffs were awarded a judgment for $2,500 as damages suffered through the loss by fire of their house.

The complaint briefly alleges that plaintiffs were owners jointly of a dwelling-house to which the defendant, without any right, license or permission so to do, attached its high-powered electric wires, and that by reason thereof plaintiffs’ house was totally destroyed by fire on March 9, 1921; that said fire was caused by the electric wires so attached to plaintiffs’ house and by reason thereof plaintiffs suffered damages, etc.

The answer in brief and concise form denies each and all of the allegations of the complaint.

Defendant and appellant in urging a reversal of the judgment makes two contentions:

First. That the complaint is based on trespass and not on negligence, while the findings fail to find on the issue of trespass, but do find on an issue of negligence, which is nowhere raised in the pleadings.

Second. Even if the pleadings could be interpreted as raising an issue of negligence, the evidence in the record is insufficient to support the finding of negligence.

We have this day filed an opinion in the case of

J. A. Boomer et al.

v.

Southern California Edison Co.,

being Civil No. 5330,

ante,

p. 375 [267 Pac. 178], which case arose out of the same fire that caused the loss which is the subject of controversy in this action. The evidence presented in that ease relating to matters bearing on defendant’s responsibility for

[384]

the fire, and the question as to its right to attach its wires to plaintiffs’ house was substantially the same as that present in the instant case. For the sake of brevity, we refer to that opinion for a detailed statement of facts and circumstances bearing upon the origin of the fire and make only such reference to the evidence as may seem necessary in considering the points here involved.