Foley v. Northern California Power Co.

Negligence of Electric Power Company—Lines Broken by Snowstorm;—Insufficient Inspection-—Action for Death.—Where the lines of an electric power company in a municipality were caused by a heavy snowstorm to sag and break, and the power was turned off during an inspection of the lines which was partial and incomplete, and then the power was turned on again, so as to charge in full a broken line which it failed to inspect or repair within a reasonable time, and thereby caused the death by electrocution of one who was .moving the broken wire out of the way, believing it to be harmless, such failure fully to inspect its lines throughout the municipality, and to discover and repair the broken wire, was actionable negligence.

Id.—Company Put upon Notice by Storm—Unreasonable Delay.— The company was plainly put upon notice by reason of the storm, and in view of the ageney with which it was dealing, and the importance of the safety of citizens, the company could not be held blameless for its failure to ascertain and avert the obvious peril. While a reasonable time would be allowed to make an investigation, yet the proximity of the scene of the accident and its accessibility to the company’s office rendered the delay of two days after the storm unnecessary and unreasonable.

Id.—Duty of Operator of Electric Plant—System op Inspection.— The owner or operator of an electric plant is bound to exercise reasonable care in maintaining a system of inspection by which any change in the physical condition of the plant which could tend to increase the danger to persons lawfully in pursuit of their business or pleasure may be reasonably discovered.

Id.—Care to be in Proportion to Danger.—The care which the law exacts from any person, firm or corporation engaged in operating an instrumentality is always in proportion to the degree of danger reasonably to be apprehended from the use of the means employed.

Id.—Contributory Negligence—Burden op Proof.—In this state the burden of proving contributory negligence is east upon the defendant.

Id.—Contributory Negligence a Question of Pact for Jury.—Contributory negligence is a question of fact for the jury, and while there is evidence from which the jury might be warranted in finding against the existence of contributory negligence, yet it cannot be said that the freedom of the deceased from contributory negligence is so clear that an adverse finding is entirely unsupported.

Id.—Aimless or Needless Seizing of Wire.—Where there is evidence that the deceased picked up the wire with both hands, and the inference is not unreasonable that there was no occasion for him to take hold of the wire either for his own safety or that of others, even if he had reason to believe that the wire was harmless, yet if he aimlessly or wantonly or unnecessarily seized it and thereby received a shock, it would still be competent for a jury to find that his unnecessary or reckless act was inexcusable, and to hold him legally responsible for the consequences.