Case Name: JOHNNIE PORTER WOOTEN v. TIDE WATER POWER COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1931-10-28
Citations: 201 N.C. 560
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHNNIE PORTER WOOTEN v. TIDE WATER POWER COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 201
Pages: 560–560

Head Matter:
JOHNNIE PORTER WOOTEN v. TIDE WATER POWER COMPANY.
(Filed 28 October, 1931.)
Electricity A c — Held: complaint alleged cause of action against electric company for negligent installation of wiring.
Every person specially injured by tbe breach of duty of an electric company can maintain an action for bis individual compensation, and where a complaint in an action against an electric company for damages caused by tbe negligent installation of electric wiring, refers throughout to the house damaged as the plaintiff’s “house” or “home” it is a sufficient allegation of ownership upon which to deny a motion of nonsuit entered upon the ground of failure to allege ownership.
Appeal by plaintiff from Moore, Special Judge, at August Term, 1931, of BladeN.
Eeversed.
Burney & McClelland and Herbert McClammy for plaintiff.
Carr, Poisson & James for defendant.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
Tbe plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for the burning of her house alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligent installation of electric wires therein. She alleged that the defendant furnished an electric current for the purpose of lighting her home, after having installed the electric wires; that the work was negligently done by the defendant; and that in consequence her property was destroyed by fire. The defendant filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint.
The case came on for trial and the defendant demurred ore terms on the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.
The judgment does not set forth the ground upon which the demurrer was sustained but on the argument here the reason was said to be the want of an allegation that the plaintiff was the owner of the property.
"We think there is error in this conclusion. In her complaint the plaintiff describes and repeatedly refers to the building as her "house," and her "home." It is elementary that every person specially injured by an electric company's breach of duty can maintain an action for his individual compensation. Under the allegations of the complaint the question whether the plaintiff owned the property and the extent of her loss are matters for the jury to determine from the evidence. Judgment
Reversed.