Case Title: City of Starkville v. Harrison

Citation: 418 So. 2d 51

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1982-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
418 So. 2d 51 (1982) CITY OF STARKVILLE, Mississippi v. Ken HARRISON and Teresa Harrison. No. 53270. Supreme Court of Mississippi. July 14, 1982. Rehearing Denied August 25, 1982. Gholson, Hicks & Nichols, John W. Crowell, Columbus, for appellant. Stark & McAlpin, William D. Stark, Starkville, for appellees. Before PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER, P.J., and DAN M. LEE, J. DAN M. LEE, Justice, for the Court: This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County wherein Ken Harrison and Teresa Harrison, plaintiffs/appellees, recovered damages in the amount of $2700 from the City of Starkville, Mississippi (city), defendant/appellant, in an action predicated upon the city's negligence in connecting electrical service to the Harrison's vacant apartment. Following the connection of electrical power to the Harrison's *52 apartment, a fire erupted destroying numerous items of personal property belonging to the Harrisons who had not completed their move into the apartment. From an adverse verdict and judgment the city appeals. We reverse. Ken and Teresa Harrison were married on August 4, 1979. On August 1, 1979, they leased Apartment 5E at the Parkside Apartment Complex in Starkville, Mississippi. The couple began moving certain items into the apartment on Saturday, August 11, 1979. However, there was no plan to occupy the apartment until the following weekend. Most of the items moved into the apartment were gifts the couple had received in connection with their wedding. On August 9, 1979, Ken Harrison called the City of Starkville Electric Department to inquire as to information regarding the connection of electrical service to the apartment. When Ken asked for a specific date on which the connection could be made, he was allegedly told that no specific date could be given due to the amount of connections requested at that time of year. Ken expressed his desire that the power be supplied by Friday, August 17, 1979, when his wife had planned to return to the apartment. Teresa Harrison prepared a check for the amount of the deposit and attached a note stating she would be at the apartment on Friday, August 17, 1979. The power connection was evidently made on August 16, 1979, while the apartment was vacant. An eye on the stove was apparently in an on position and subsequently ignited boxes stacked on or near the stove. A similar situation had occurred in the city of Starkville in the summer of 1975. According to city electric department officials and employees, electrical service was not connected in the absence of a specific date by a customer. Where a deposit was mailed in and no specific date requested, service was generally made on the date the deposit was received. Gwen Perkins, who prepared the meter order for the Harrisons, testified to the contrary. She asserted if a deposit by mail was received without a specific cut-on date, she withheld service until further notice by the customer. However, where specific orders accompanied the deposit, service was made on the date requested. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Harrisons and assessed their damages at $2700. Final judgment was entered accordingly. Electrical companies are required to exercise the highest degree of care in dealing with their product, which is a deadly agency. However, the degree of care does not contemplate that such companies become absolute insurers regardless of fault. Tallahatchie Valley Electric Power v. Clinton, 347 So. 2d 348 (Miss. 1977). 26 Am.Jur.2d, Electricity, Gas and Steam, section 105 (1966), states in part the general rule as to liability for defective wires or appliances beyond the control of the company supplying the electricity: Appellant contends it had no other duty in the present case than to make sure proper connections were made absent actual, knowledge of the fact that appellees' stove was left in the on position. As a general rule, there is no duty to inspect poles, wires or appliances before supplying electrical power where such poles, wires or appliances are controlled by the customer. 26 Am.Jur.2d, Electricity, Gas and Steam, § 106 (1966). In White v. Orlando Utilities Commission, 156 So. 2d 879 (Fla.App. 1963), White brought suit for damages which resulted from a fire when defendant's employee connected electrical power to his dwelling without notifying or ascertaining whether anyone was present on the premises. White, in his complaint, alleged: On appeal, the dismissal of White's complaint was affirmed due to the failure to include an allegation that defendant knew or should have known that the circuits were defective. Appellees in the case sub judice charged in their declaration that appellant was negligent in failing to arrange to have the electrical connection made at a time when someone was present in the apartment. Viewing the evidence as we must on motion for directed verdict or peremptory instruction, appellees' proof established that appellant made a proper connection of electrical service to appellees' apartment without actual knowledge of the dangerous or defective condition of appellees' appliance. The evidence further established that appellees merely requested that electrical service be supplied by a specific date. However, there was no proof, or contention made, that appellees specified that service be installed only when the apartment was occupied by one of the appellees. We express no opinion as to whether a supplier of electricity could be held liable for negligent connection of electrical service where a certain date is specified or agreed upon between a customer and supplier and connection is made on a date other than that specified or agreed. Appellees' proof simply failed to establish any negligence on appellant's part. Since we have concluded that appellees failed to establish appellant's negligence in connecting electrical current to their apartment, appellant's motion for a peremptory instruction should have been granted. The cause is therefore reversed and judgment rendered here for appellant. REVERSED AND RENDERED. PATTERSON, C.J., SUGG and WALKER, P. JJ., and BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING and HAWKINS, JJ., concur.