{ "id": 8625762, "name": "J. R. SMALL v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Small v. Southern Public Utilities Co.", "decision_date": "1931-05-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "719", "last_page": "722", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "200 N.C. 719" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "156 N. C., 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271778 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/156/0435-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S. E., 33", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 N. C., 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656843 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/168/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 S. E., 391", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N. C., 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11253610 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/141/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S. E., 1001", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N. C., 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657308 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/170/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 S. E., 33", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 N. C., 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656553 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/169/0068-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 W. Va., 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "W. Va.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Col., 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Col.,", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 S. E., 139", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N. C., 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658765 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/157/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S. E., 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N. C., 784", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626902 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0784-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 S. E., 801", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 N. C., 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659437 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/129/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S. E., 744", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 N. C., 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273739 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/167/0630-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S. E., 448", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 N. C., 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658962 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/165/0354-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 S. E., 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N. C., 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217769 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 S. E., 344", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "114 N. C., 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649694 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/114/0203-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 S. E., 549", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N. C., 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629487 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 S. E., 399", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N. C., 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272900 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 S. E., 767", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N. C., 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651895 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/154/0131-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S. E., 1010", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 N. C., 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661890 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/168/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 S. E., 92", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 N. C., 832", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655281 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/187/0832-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 S. E., 400", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N. C., 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627969 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S. E., 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N. C., 664", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612195 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0664-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S. E., 484", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 N. C., 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271778 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/156/0435-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 469, "char_count": 7060, "ocr_confidence": 0.504, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.0179053159231407e-07, "percentile": 0.9065260175400187 }, "sha256": "bf7a0f42cbd0d3493b37cb942064d05f5065955fccbc1d22063a2fae31a0ec80", "simhash": "1:81d281ec3ae38978", "word_count": 1205 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:42.579520+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "J. R. SMALL v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe ease was properly submitted to the jury on authority of what was said iu Starr v. Tel. Co., 156 N. C., 435, 72 S. E., 484; Lawrence v. Power Co., 190 N. C., 664, 130 S. E., 735; Carpenter v. Power Co., 191 N. C., 130, 131 S. E., 400, McAllister v. Pryor, 187 N. C., 832, 123 S. E., 92; Shaw v. Public Service Corp., 168 N. C., 611, 84 S. E., 1010; Turner v. Power Co., 154 N. C., 131, 69 S. E., 767; Harrington v. Wadesboro, 153 N. C., 437, 69 S. E., 399; Arrington v. Pinetops, 197 N. C., 433, 149 S. E., 549.\nDue to the deadly and latently dangerous character of electricity, the degree of care required of persons, corporate or individual, furnishing electric light and power to others for private gain, has been variously stated. \u201cThe utmost degree of care,\u201d was the language adopted and approved in Haynes v. Gas Co., 114 N. C., 203, 19 S. E., 344. \u201cThe danger is great, and the care and watchfulness must be commensurate with it,\u201d said Burwell, J., in delivering the opinion. And in Turner v. Power Co., supra, Holce, J., used this language: \u201cOwing to the very dangerous nature of electricity and the serious and often fatal consequences of negligent default in its control and use, the law imposes a very high degree of care upon companies who manufacture and furnish it.\u201d\nFollowing are some of the various expressions found in the decisions: \u201cHighest degree of care\u201d (Ellis v. Power Co., 193 N. C., 357, 137 S. E., 163) ; \u201chighest degree of care in maintenance and inspection\u201d (Benton v. Public Service Corp., 165 N. C., 354, 81 S. E., 448); \u201chigh skill, the most consummate care and caution, and the utmost diligence and foresight . . . consistent with practical operation\u201d (Turner v. Power Co., 167 N. C., 630, 83 S. E., 744); \u201cgreatest degree of care and constant vigilance\u201d (Mitchell v. Electric Co., 129 N. C., 166, 39 S. E., 801); \u201cvery high degree of care\u201d (Harrington v. Wadesboro, supra); \u201call reasonable precaution\u201d (Turner v. Power Co., 154 N. C., 131); \u201cutmost care and prudence consistent with practical operation\u201d (Helms v. Power Co., 192 N. C., 784, 136 S. E., 9); \u201crule of the prudent man\u201d (Hicks v. Tel. Co., 157 N. C., 519, 73 S. E., 139); \u201chighest skill . . . which is attainable, consistent with practical operation\u201d (Electric Co. v. Lawrence, 31 Col., 308); \u201cnecessary care and prudence to prevent injury\u201d (Love v. Power Co., 86 W. Va., 397). In Parker v. Electric Ry. Co., 169 N. C., 68, 85 S. E., 33, a nonsuit was sustained because \u201cthe evidence showed that the defendant had exercised every possible care.\u201d Ragan v. Traction Co., 170 N. C., 92, 86 S. E., 1001.\nIn approving these formulae as to the degree of care required in such cases, it is not to be supposed that there is a varying standard of duty by which responsibility for negligence is to be determined.' Helms v. Power Co., supra. The standard is always the rule of the prudent man, or the care which a prudent man ought to use under like circumstances. What reasonable care is, of course, varies in different cases and in the presence of different conditions. Fitzgerald v. R. R., 141 N. C., 530, 54 S. E., 391. The standard is due care, and due care means commensurate care under the circumstances. Hanes v. Shapiro, 168 N. C., 24, 84 S. E., 33; 9 R. C. L., 1200.\nWhile the jury would have been fully justified in returning a contrary verdict on the defendant\u2019s evidence, we think the plaintiff\u2019s evidence is amply sufficient as against a demurrer.\nThe record is free from reversible error, hence the verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hines, Kelly & Boren for plaintiff.", "W. S. O\u2019B. Robinson, Jr., and JR. M. Robinson for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. R. SMALL v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY.\n(Filed 6 May, 1931.)\n1. Electricity A c \u2014 Evidence that defendant left wires in dangerous condition resulting in damage held sufficient.\nIn this action damages were sought of an electrical power company furnishing electricity for hire, the evidence tended to show that, in temporarily disconnecting plaintiff\u2019s service at his request, the power company ivas negligent in leaving the wires after removing the meter, which resulted in the destruction of plaintiff\u2019s house by fire, and also evidence in behalf of the defendant that it was not negligent: Held, the issue was properly submitted to the jury upon authority of Starr v. Telephone Co., 156 N. C., 435, and other like cases cited.\n2. Electricity A a \u2014 Electricity requires care of ordinarily prudent man under circumstances, considering inherent danger of the force.\nThe degree of care required of a person in any instance varies according to the facts and circumstances under the uniform rule of that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent man would exercise under like conditions, and the degree of care required of those furnishing electricity for hire is that degree of care which is commensurate with the dangerous quality.of the force, and comes within the rule of that care which reasonably should he exercised by an ordinarily prudent man.\nAppeal by defendant from Schenck, J., at October Civil Term, 1930, of Guilfoed.\nCivil action to recover damages for destruction by fire of plaintiff\u2019s bouse alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in failing to take necessary precautions to protect the same when disconnecting electric service wires.\nPlaintiff was the owner of a dwelling-house in Gold Hill, Rowan County, equipped for electric light service which the defendant furnished. In May, 1929, the plaintiff moved out of his house, left the same vacant, paid the defendant its bill for electric current, and asked that the service be discontinued, meter taken out, wires disconnected, etc.\nIt is in evidence that the defendant failed to take the usual and customary precautions in disconnecting its wires, in that, ends of live wires were left dangling inside the house near a wooden ceiling, whereas proper prudence and precaution required that such wires he cut outside the house so as to prevent the current from going inside. The defendant\u2019s evidence, on the other hand, was to the effect that the wires had been properly and safely disconnected.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence further tends to show that during the evening of 29 August, 1929, a severe electrical storm visited the community of Gold Hill, during which lightning struck the defendant\u2019s transmission lines, burnt out the transformer, caused heavy currents of electricity to be carried over the wires into a number of houses, including the plaintiff\u2019s, which was set on fire. The defendant\u2019s evidence, however, tends to prove that the fire arose from other causes.\nPlaintiff contends that his house was destroyed because of the defective condition in which the defendant left its wires when it took out the meter and disconnected the electric service wires.\nThe jury answered the issue of negligence in favor of the plaintiff, and fixed the damages at $1,500. Judgment accordingly.\nThe defendant appeals, relying chiefly upon its demurrer to the evidence and motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit.\nHines, Kelly & Boren for plaintiff.\nW. S. O\u2019B. Robinson, Jr., and JR. M. Robinson for defendant." }, "file_name": "0719-01", "first_page_order": 787, "last_page_order": 790 }