Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-06-07
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRClNIAN-PILoT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
c. e. RY. co. VS.. MINGLE.
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
March 30, 1900.


If A PERSON is INJURED BY REA-
SON OF THE PRESENCE OF A
LIVE GUY WIRE IN TILE STREET
THE COMPANY OWNING THE
WII1D Is PRINIuA FACDE GUILTY
OF NEGLIGENCE. WHICH, IF
NOT RDBUTnED. ENTITIES THE
PLAINTIFF TO RECOVER.
This was an action for Injuries receiy-
ed by plaintiff while riding a bicycle
along one Of the streets of Chattanooga.
lie suddenly came upon a live guy wire
lying in the street and in attempting
to avoid running over 1t received seri-
GUS injury. The wire had been broken
by an approaching car, whose trolley
IN some way Slipped, struck the wire,
broke 1t and 1t fell into the street. From
Juogment for the plaintiff defendant
appealed. The court says:
We agree with the counsel of plaintiff
IN error that the rule is that those who
go on highway may we'll he held to
DO SO subject to their taking upon them
selves the risk of injury from inevita-
Ole danger. where carelessness cannot
De charged upon any one" But was
the fall of n dangerously charged euy
wire an inevitable danger? In the case
at par the guy wire, charged as 1t was
with heavy electric current was sus-
pended over street crowded with per-
sons, passing at all times OF the day,
and was intrnsfcally dangerous, yc. the
fisk OF accident thereupon was not in
eVitaible. If the wire was made OF good
material. and was properly attached
ABOVE ard below, and then carefully SUI
perv1sed. there was no inevitable dam
ger incident to its suspension above
the street. If. however, the wire was
iinhperlectiy constructed or attached, or
III properly attached in the beginning. X
was neglected for 4 period of time suf-
fcieHtly long for expansion or strain
upon II TO weaken the attachments
then 1t did become n menace to the pub
TIC: and the company being guilty of
the negligence which contributed to
this condition. was responsible for the
damage proXimatcly resulting there
from. To accomplish the purpose of it's
erectcn, 1t was required to be heavy
ana strong enough to stand the force
OIL the strain. rs well as that of an
ordinary blow. 1t is common expert
ence that In propelling car the troll
Icy Will sometimes slip from the wire
.uong which 1t is passing. and If. in
SO DONG, 1t comes in contact with a
guy wire. 1T is apparent that the latter
should be of sufficient strength and
hxity to withstand the violence of the
stroke; and, II 1t fails to do So it Is NOT
an unreasonable inference, that there
mas DccH negligence in its selection,
construction. or supervision. In view
or the extreme peril consequent on the
displacement and fall uf the wires in
an electric railway system 1t Is essen
tial that high degree OF care be exer-
cised. not only in their constrri ction.
but in their continued maintenance in
q good and safe condition. If this be not
done, then, with the growing net work
OF wires suspended over the streets OF
our towns and cities those who use
these streets in the exercise of a com
mon right Will do so in constant peril.
Under these circumstances, we think
no hardship Is imposed upon the defen-
dant who IS using this dangerous agen-
cy of electricity along overhead wires
when an acciden: occurs from wire
which has fallen to the street or dan
gerously near it. In requiring him to re-
pei presumption of negligence. 1t is
within the power Of the defendant at all
times to show whether he has exercised
due care in tho selection OF material
and in their erection and subsequent
supervision. while 10 prove an action
able lack in these things would be. in
most cases, practically beyond the reach
of the party injured. Unless the rule
OF res ipsa lOguitur Is applied IL is
evident that in n large number of casos
liability for the resulting injury will
be escaped.
Affirmed.