Consolidated Electric Light & Power Co. v. Healy et ux.

ingredient of attractiveness in the compound by guarding against the danger, and to require it to do so is not to impose upon it any greater burden than though it were responsible for both the hurtful constituents.

Other claims of error were made, particularly as to instructions, but none of them were well founded, and the judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed. All the justices concurring.

t

PART VI.

INJURIES TO PERSONS AND PROPERTY CAUSED BY
DEFECTIVE INSULATION AND ELECTRICAL
APPLIANCES IN AND OVER BUILDINGS
AND PRIVATE LANDS.

(553)

CONTACT WITH LIVE WIRES ATTACHED TO

BUILDINGS.

WALTERS V. DENVER CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC LIGHT Co.

Colorado; Court of Appeals.

1. INJURY FROM CONTACT WITH WIRE FASTENED ON HOUSE; PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE.—The plaintiff, a boy of twelve years of age, was severely injured by a shock received from touching a defectively insulated electric wire fastened on a building within easy reach from a window. It was held that the facts were sufficient to make it a presumptive case of negligence against the defendant.

2. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.-The question as to whether or not the plaintiff was negligent in reaching out the window and attempting to replace the glass insulator, which had fallen from its bracket, is for the jury. 3. NEGLIGENCE IN PERMITTING WIRE TO BE UNINSULATED.-Whether or not the wire in question was uninsulated at the time of the accident, or whether the defendant was guilty of negligence in permitting such condition is a question of fact for the jury. An instruction to the jury was based upon the theory that defendant was relieved from all care as to the uninsulated wire except as to persons having some duty or business to perform at the exposed point is erroneous. It was the duty of the defendant to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances to have and maintain the wire at this place in a reasonably safe condition.

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment for defendant. Decided March 10, 1902; reported (Colo. App.), 68 Pac. 117.

R. T. McNeal and Wells & Taylor, for appellants.

Wolcott & Vaile and William W. Field, for appellee.

Opinion by Gunter, J.:

Verdict was for defendant, and from the judgment thereon is this appeal. At a former trial defendant objected to the introduction of testimony, upon the ground that the complaint herein did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This