Case Name: PAULINE HICKS DAVIS, Administratrix of the Estate of CRAWFORD WHEELER DAVIS, Deceased, v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1953-06-12
Citations: 238 N.C. 106
Docket Number: 
Parties: PAULINE HICKS DAVIS, Administratrix of the Estate of CRAWFORD WHEELER DAVIS, Deceased, v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 238
Pages: 106–109

Head Matter:
PAULINE HICKS DAVIS, Administratrix of the Estate of CRAWFORD WHEELER DAVIS, Deceased, v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY.
(Filed 12 June, 1953.)
1. Death § B—
In an action for wrongful death, plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to establish that defendant was guilty of a negligent act or omission, and that such act or omission was the proximate cause of the death of decedent.
2. Negligence § 9—
Foreseeability of injury is a requisite of proximate cause.
3. Electricity § 7 — Held: Injury was not foreseeable under the evidence, and therefore nonsuit was properly entered.
The evidence tended to show that defendant maintained at a height of 17 or 18 feet above the surface of a highway an uninsulated high voltage transmission line, and that plaintiff’s intestate was electrocuted when he threw a house mover’s measuring tape over the transmission line with a view to determining whether there was sufficient clearance to move a building under the line. Held: Even conceding negligence on the part of defendant in the maintenance of the transmission line, in the absence of any evidence that defendant had notice that plaintiff’s intestate was moving the house under its line, the tragedy was not within the reasonable prevision of defendant, and therefore its motion to nonsuit should have been allowed.
Denhy, J., dissenting.
Appeal by plaintiff from Bone, J., at November Term, 1952, of DURHAM.
Civil action to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate-who suffered electrocution when be threw a house-mover’s measuring tape over a transmission line carrying a powerful current of electricity.
The plaintiff’s evidence made out this case :
1. The plaintiff’s intestate Crawford Wheeler Davis, an alert and industrious young man of the age of 25 "years, was experienced in the moving of buildings from place to place by means of rollers and screw supports.
2. The defendant Carolina Power & Light Company, which was engaged in furnishing electricity to the public, distributed electricity through a settled community immediately west of the corporate limits of the City of Raleigh in Wake County by a transmission line, which crossed a public highway known as Western Boulevard at a height of 17 or 18 feet above the surface of the highway. The transmission line consisted of bare copper wires, which carried approximately 7,200 volts.
3. Prior to 23 April, 1951, tbe plaintiff’s intestate entered into a contract witb tbe State Highway and Public Works Commission whereby be obligated himself to move a one-story building along Western Boulevard from its original site east of tbe defendant’s transmission line to a new location west of tbe line.
4. On tbe date mentioned, tbe plaintiff’s intestate threw a house-mover’s measuring tape over tbe defendant’s transmission line witb a view to determining whether there was sufficient space beneath tbe transmission line for tbe clearance of tbe building. When tbe tape came in contact witb tbe bare wires, a deadly current of electricity escaped from tbe wires, coursed through tbe tape, and struck tbe plaintiff’s intestate, killing him instantly.
Tbe evidence did not indicate that tbe defendant bad any notice that tbe plaintiff’s intestate intended to move tbe building along tbe highway or to throw tbe tape over tbe transmission line.
When tbe plaintiff bad introduced her evidence and rested her case, tbe defendant moved to dismiss tbe ¿ction upon a compusory nonsuit. Judge Bone allowed tbe motion, and entered judgment accordingly. Tbe plaintiff excepted and appealed.
Egbert L. Haywood and Emery B. Denny, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.
Fuller, Reade & Fuller, E. S. DeLaney, Jr., and A. T. Arledge for defendant, appellee.

Opinion:
Ervin, J.
This case is founded on negligence. In an action for death by wrongful act based on negligence, tbe burden rests on tbe plaintiff to produce evidence sufficient to establish tbe two essential elements of actionable negligence, namely: (1) That tbe defendant was guilty of a negligent act or omission; and (2) that such act or omission was tbe proximate cause of tbe death of tbe decedent. Sowers v. Marley, 235 N.C. 607, 70 S.E. 2d 670.
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that foreseeability of injury is a requisite of proximate cause. Cox v. Freight Lines, 236 N.C. 72, 72 S.E. 2d 25; Wood v. Telephone Co., 228 N.C. 605, 46 S.E. 2d 717; Watkins v. Furnishing Co., 224 N.C. 674, 31 S.E. 2d 917; Montgomery v. Blades, 222 N.C. 463, 23 S.E. 2d 844; Butner v. Spease, 217 N.C. 82, 6 S.E. 2d 808; Beach v. Patton, 208 N.C. 134, 179 S.E. 446; Osborne v. Coal Co., 207 N.C. 545, 177 S.E. 796. This being true, we would'be compelled to affirm tbe compulsory nonsuit even if we should accept as valid tbe contention of plaintiff that tbe defendant was negligent in conveying a dangerous current of electricity across a public highway in a settled, community on uninsulated wires suspended only 17 or 18 feet above tbe surface of tbe highway. Tbe evidence at tbe trial did not disclose any facts sufficient to charge the defendant with, notice that someone might throw a house-mover's measuring tape over its transmission line. In consequence, the tragedy was not within the reasonable foresight of the defendant. Pugh v. Power Co., 237 N.C. 693, 75 S.E. 2d 766; Mintz v. Murphy, 235 N.C. 304, 69 S.E. 2d 849; Deese v. Light Co., 234 N.C. 558, 67 S.E. 2d 751; Stanley v. Smithfield, 211 N.C. 386, 190 S.E. 207; Parker v. R. R., 169 N.C. 68, 85 S.E. 33; Caraglio v. Frontier Power Co., 192 F. 2d 175; Croxton v. Duke Power Co., 181 F. 2d 306; Garrett v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 218 Ark. 575, 237 S.W. 895; Calloway v. Central Georgia Power Co., 43 Ga. App. 820, 160 S.E. 703; Dilley v. Iowa Public Service Co., 210 Iowa 1332, 227 N.W. 173; Fredericks' Admr. v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 276 Ky. 13, 122 S.W. 2d 1000; Watrals' Adm'r v. Appalachian Power Co., 273 Ky. 25, 115 S.W. 2d 372; Kelley v. Texas Utilities Co. (Tex. Civ. App), 115 S.W. 2d 1233; Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co., 193 Wash. 51, 74 P. 2d 898; 18 Am. Jur., Electricity, section 53; 29 C.J.S., Electricity, section 42.
The ruling on the motion to nonsuit would have been the same had the plaintiff's witness J. O. Winters been permitted to testify that he had never observed uninsulated wires crossing highways.
Affirmed.