Court Opinion

ID: 9828238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:13:48.402242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.280498
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellee in its motion for rehearing asserts there is no evidence to raise the issues of negligence arising out of the alleged failure to inspect and disconnect the current at the highway when the use of the lights in the house was discontinued and the meter at the house removed.
To the motion appellants filed a reply quoting the evidence upon’ these issues which we have checked and find to be correct. It plainly raises the issues mentioned.
Since the case must be reversed, it would be inappropriate to discuss its probative force and effect.
We merely refer to some of the cases which recognize that “electricity is a silent, deadly, and instantaneous force,, and one *158who uses it for profit is bound to exercise care corresponding to tlie dangers incident to its use.” Rowe v. Taylorville Elec. Co., 213 Ill. 318, 72 N. E. 711, 713; McLaughlin v. Louisville Elec. Light Co., 100 Ky. 173, 87 S. W. 851, 34 L. R. A. 812; Cooley on Torts, 1492. Quoted with approval by Justice Dibbrell in San Antonio G. & E. Co. v. Ocon, 105 Tex. 139, 146 S. W. 162, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1046. See, also, Jacksonville, I. & E. Co. v. Moses, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 496, 134 S. W. 379, and eases cited In 20 C. J. p. 342, note 74.
The motion is overruled.