TITLE V. MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT DUTIES AND LIABILITIES. CHAPTER XXI. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION. § 438. Duty of companies main- § 445b. Duties and liabilities to Dy Electroliers § 438. Duty of companies maintaining electrical appliances in streets. Companies constructing and operating electrical lines in streets and highways are charged with certain duties and obligations in the maintenance of such lines. In many cases wires are charged with high and dangerous currents of electricity which, in the absence of reasonable care as to stringing, insulation and repair thereof, would prove dangerous to the lives both of employees and of others in the legitimate use of the streets. So, also, the large and cumbersome poles used in many cases, the crossarms, and the insulators suspended at considerable height from the ground may, if not properly maintained, be a great source of danger. And again, where two or more electrical companies have suspended their wires in the same street, and the wires of one company may so interfere with those of another company as to impede the proper operation of its line and conduct of business, the law imposes certain requirements or duties, as to the erection and maintenance of such wires. As a general rule electrical companies, aside from their obligations to employees and other companies,1 while not insurers of the absolute safety of the public against all dangers arising from the lawful erection and maintenance of their lines in the streets,2 are bound to exercise such reasonable care in the maintenance of such lines as a prudent, careful, person would take of property of a similar character, in constant use and continually exposed to the effect of the atmosphere and of the weather. In a case in the Circuit Court of Appeals it 1 See subsequent chapters herein as to these. 2 United States: City of Denver v. Sherrett, 60 U. S. App. 104, 31 C. C. A. 499, 88 Fed. 226, 5 Am. Neg. 529; Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Thorn, 64 Fed. 287, 12 C. C. A. 104, 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 283. Arkansas: City Elec. St. R. Co. v. Conery, 61 Ark. 381, 31 L. R. A. 570, 33 S. W. 426, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 365, 54 Am. St. Rep. 262. Colorado: Denver Consol. Elec. Co. v. Lawrence, 31 Colo. 301, 73 Pac. 39, 8 Am. Elec. Cas. 617; Denver Consol. E. Co. v. Simpson, 21 Col. 371, 31 L. R. A. 566, 41 Pac. 499. Iowa: Harter v. Colfax Elec. L. & P. Co., 124 Iowa, 500, 100 N. W. 508. Nebraska: New Omaha Thomson-Houston Elec. L. Co. v. Anderson (Neb. 1905), 102 N. W. 89, 17 Am. Neg. R. 601. Virginia: Norfolk Ry. & L. Co. v. Spratley, 103 Va. 379, 49 S. E. 502. 3 United States: City of Denver v. Sherrett, 60 U. S. App. 104, 31 C. C. A. 499, 88 Fed. 226, 5 Am. Neg. R. 529; Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Thorn, 64 Fed. 287, 12 C. C. A. 104, 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 289. Arkansas: City Elec. St. R. Co. v. Conery, 61 Ark. 381, 33 S. W. 426, 54 Am. St. Rep. 262, 31 L. R. A. 570, 3 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 365. Colorado: Denver Consol. E. Co. v. Simpson, 21 Col. 371, 41 Pac. 499, 31 L. R. A. 566, holding company bound to highest degree of care. Connecticut: Nelson v. Bradford Lighting C. & W. Co., 75 Conn. 548, 54 Atl. 303, 8 Am. Elec. Cas. 542, holding that a very high degree of care is required. Georgia: Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. v. Owings, 97 Ga. 663, 25 S. E. 377, 33 L. R. A. 798, 5 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 1. Illinois: Commonwealth Elec. Co. v. Melville, 210 Ill. 70, 70 N. E. 1052, affg. 110 Ill. App. 242; Quincy Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bauman, 203 Ill. 295, 67 N. E. 807, 8 Am. Elec. Cas. 460, affg. 104 Ill. App. 600; Cumberland Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. Coats, 100 Ill. App. 519; Alton R. & I. Co. v. Foulds, 82 Ill. App. 322. Iowa: Barto v. Iowa Telephone Co., 126 Iowa 241, 101 N. W. 876; Harter v. Colfax Elec. L. & P. Co., 124 Iowa, 500, 100 N. W. 508. Kansas: Waller v. Leavenworth Light & H. Co., 9 Kan. App. 301, 61 Pac. 327. Kentucky: Macon v. Paducah St. Ry. Co., 23 Ky. Law R. 46, 62 S. W. 496. Louisiana: Wilson V. Great Southern Teleph. & Teleg. Co., 41 La. Ann. 1041, 6 So. 781, 3 Am. Elec. Cas. 466. Maine: Cleveland v. Bangor St. Ry. Co., 86 Me. 232, 29 Atl. 1005, 4 Am. Elec. Cas. 398, and note. Maryland: Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. State, Nelson, 82 Md. 293, 33 Atl. 763, 51 Am. St. Rep. was said in this connection: "In all cases wherein telegraph, telephone, electric light and power, and electric car companies obtain and exercise the privilege of erecting and maintaining poles, wires, lamps, and other appliances in the public streets, they are bound to know that the maintenance of such appliances in and about the highway may create dangers to persons exercising the primary and paramount right of passage along or across the same. The companies are not insurers of the safety of the public against all dangers arising from the lawful placing in the street of the appliances pertaining to the business carried on by the companies, but they are bound to know the dangers which may naturally be caused by such use of the streets, and to guard against them by the exercise of all the 464, 31 L. R. A. 572. Massachusetts: Griffin V. United States Elec. L. Co., 164 Mass. 492, 49 Am. St. Rep. 477, 41 N. E. 675, Uggla v. West End St. Ry. Co., 160 Mass. 351, 4 Am. Elec. Cas. 391, 35 N. E. 1126, holding that reasonable care might properly be said to be a "high degree of care." Michigan: Warren v. City Elec. Ry. Co., 141 Mich. 298, 104 N. W. 613. Minnesota: Gilbert v. Duluth General Elec. Co., 93 Minn. 99, 100 N. W. 653, 16 Am. Neg. R. 446. Missouri: Harrison v. Kansas City Elec. L. Co., 195 Mo. 606, 93 S. W. 951. Nebraska: New Omaha ThomsonHouston Elec. Co. (1905), 102 N. W. 89, 17 Am. Neg. R. 601. New Jersey: Hamilton V. Bordentown Elec. L. & M. Co., 68 N. J. L. 85, 52 Atl. 290, 8 Am. Elec. Cas. 524; New York & N. J. Teleph. Co. V. Bennett, 62 N. J. L. 742, 42 Atl. 759, 5 Am. Neg. R. 657; Newark E. L. & Power Co. v. Ruddy, 62 N. J. L. 505, 41 Atl. 712, 5 Am. Neg. R. 402; Excelsior Elec. Co. v. Sweet, 57 N. J. L. 224, 30 Atl. 553. New York: Flood v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 131 N. Y. 603, 30 N. E. 196, 4 Am. Elec. Cas. 402; Ward v. At lantic & Pac. Teleg. Co., 71 N. Y. 81, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 259; Penny v. Rochester Ry. Co., 7 App. Div. (N. Y.) 595, 74 N. Y. St. R. 732, 40 N. Y. Supp. 172, affd., 154 N. Y. 770; Staringer v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 34 N. Y. St. R. 508, 11 N. Y. Supp. 817, 3 Am. Elec. Cas. 474. North Carolina; Asbury v. Charlotte Elec. Ry. L. & P. Co., 125 N. C. 568, 34 S. E. 654; Haynes v. Raleigh Gas Co., 114 N. C. 203, 41 Am. St. Rep. 786, 19 S. E. 341, holding utmost degree of care necessary. Oregon: Ahern v. Oregon Teleph. Co., 24 Or. 276, 4 Am. Elec. Cas. 349, 33 Pac. 403. Pennsyl vania: Daltry v. Media Elec. L. H. & P. Co., 208 Pa. St. 403, 57 Atl. 833, 208 Pa. St. 414, 57 Atl. 1134; Hand v. Central Penn. Teleph. & Supply Co. (C. P.), 1 Lack. L. News, 351. Utah: Thompson v. Salt Lake Rap. Trans. Co., 16 Utah, 281, 52 Pac. 92, 40 L. R. A. 172, 10 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 563; Hall v. Ogden City St. R. Co., 13 Utah, 243, 44 Pac. 1046, 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 77. Wisconsin: Huber v. La Crosse City R. Co., 92 Wis. 636, 66 N. W. 708, 31 L. R. A. 583. |