5 State v. Gani (La.) 318 State, Barnett v. (Ala. App.) State, Beasley v. (Miss.). State, Belton v. (Ala.). State, Bembo v. (Ala. App.) State, Carter v. (Ala. App.) State, Carter v. (Miss.). State, Chambliss v. (Miss.) State, City of Bradentown v. (Fla.) State, Clark v. (Ala. App.). Sprinkle v. State (Miss.) State, Allen v., two cases (Ala. App.) State, Armstrong v. (Ala. App.) State, Barker v., two cases (Ala. App.) State, Bennett v. (Ala. App.) State, Blackman v. (Ala. App.) State v. Brodes (La.). State, Burden v. (Ala. App.) State, Carnley v. (Fla.). State, Carpenter v. (Miss.) State v. Carricut (La.). 602 State, Gordon v. (Ala. App.). State v. Greer (Fla.) 6 State, Heiman v. (Miss.) 761 State v. Hemler (La.). 190 State v. Hemler (La.). 546 State, Henley v. (Ala. App.) 464 State, Hewitt v. (Ala. App.) 920 State, Hill v. (Ala. App.). 223 State v. Hogan (La.). 860 State, Hogland v. (Ala. App.) 333 State, Holley v. (Fla.)... 184 State, Holloman v. (Ala. App.) 98 State, Howard v. (Ala. App.) 920 State, Hubbard v. (Ala. App.) 784 State, Hunter v. (Miss.) .... 844 State v. Gani (La.) 319 52 State, Gardner v. (Ala. App.) 914 108 State v. Gardner (La.). 89 926 State, Garrett v. (Miss.) 245 State, Germany v. (Ala.) 926 State v. Giangosso (La.). 795 State v. Gibson (La.). 919 State v. Gilbert (Ala. App.) 683 State, Gilley v. (Ala. App.). 737 State, Gipson v. (Ala. App.), 784 917 429 192 155 921 921 785 State, Glenn v., two cases (Ala. App.) 597 State, Glover v. (Ala. App.). 921 921 598 State, Goodman v. (Ala. App.) 486 921 737 665 739 921 184 921 243 628 5 55 921 771 921 860 75 316 504 921 489 922 403 784 829 922 491 915 282 860 State, Hurd v. (Miss.) 293 556 State, James v. (Ala.App.) 922 916 State, Johnson v. (Ala.). 897 State v. Cloud (Fla.). State, Cohen v. (Ala. App.). State, Dickey v. (Ala. App.) State, Clark v. (Miss.) State v. Clarke, two cases (Ala. App.).. 926 State, Johnson v. (Fla.). State, Coggins v (Ala. App.) State, Coleman v. (Ala. App.) State, Collins v. (Ala. App.). State, Collins v. (Fla.)... State, Conley v. (Ala. App.) State, Conner v. (Ala.). State, Drummond v. (Ala. App.). 13 State, Kaiser v. (Miss.) 241 State, Kidd v. (Miss.) 920 State, King v. (Miss.). 915 State, Kuney v. (Fla.) 920 State, Latham v. (Fla.) 880 State, Lee v. (Ala. App.) 920 State, Lee v. (Miss.). 809 State, Lewis v. (Miss.) 7 State, Johnson v., two cases (Ala. App.) 922 549 5 68 840 547 551 922 296 184 507 State, Long v. (Miss.). 736 82 State, McBride v. (Ala. App.) 728 920 State, McClendon v. (Ala. App.). 923 459 State, McCormack Bros. Motor Car Co. v. 74 (Ala.) 894 184 State, McCray v. (Fla.) 831 917 State, McDaniel v. (Ala.) 791 175 State, McDaniel v. (Ala. App.). 788 246 State, McEntire v. (Ala. App.). 75 State, McGee v. (Ala. App.). 239 State, McGowan v. (Fla.). 723 State, Mack v. (Ala. App.) 183 State, McLain v. (Miss.).. 923 923 890 923 74 State, Maloy v. (Ala. App.).... State, Nelson v., two cases (Ala. App.). State, Nelson v. (Miss.) State v. Newman (La.) State, Nobles v. (Ala. App.) State, O'Kelly v. (Ala. App.). (102 So.) Page 923 State, Webb v. (Miss.). 74 State, Williamson v. (Ala. App.) 388 State, Wilson v. (Ala. App.). 238 State, Winchester v. (Ala. App.) 236 State, Winchester v. (Ala. App.) 462 State, Witcher v. (Ala. App.). 924 State, Wooley v. (Ala. App.). 727 State, Wooley v. (Ala. App.) 924 State, Woulard v. (Miss.). 784 State, Young v. (Ala.). 924 State, Young v. (Ala. App.) 166 State, Young v. (Miss.). Page 6 914 860 927 784 485 927 535 595 491 365 927 781 369 366 161 671 State, Zollicoffer v. (Miss.). 182 148 State, Zorn v. (Ala. App.).. 722 827 State Board of Administration, Goodwin v. 835 (Ala.) 718 (Ala.) 924 State Board of Administration v. Jones 58 626 924 State ex rel. Attorney General, Ex parte 924 (Ala.) 58 6 State ex rel. Attorney General, Ex parte 156 (Ala.) 924 State ex rel. Attorney General, Ex parte (Ala.) 147 791 State v. Penton (La.). State, Pickle v. (Miss.) 14 State ex rel. City of Oakdale v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (La.)....... 86 4 State, Pitts v. (Fla.). 554 State, Powell v. (Fla.) State ex rel. Covington v. Hughes (La.).. 824 State ex rel. Glaser v. Vickner (La.)....... 593 652 State ex rel. St. Peters M. Baptist Church, State, Powell v. (Miss.) 540 Ex parte (Ala.) 793 State v. Prophet (La.) State, Ratliff v. (Ala.). 666 Steed, Nolen Motor Co. v. (Ala. App.). 124 621 Steeg v. Codifer (La.) 407 State, Reeves v. (Ala. App.) State, Reid v. (Ala. App.). 488 925 Steel Cities Chemical Co., Jenkins v., two cases (Ala.).. 918 State, Rhodes v. (Ala.) 919 Stein, State v. (La.) 670 State, Robinson v. (Ala.). 693 Stevens v. Spence (Miss.). 572 State, Robinson v., two cases (Ala. App.) 925 Stewart, State v. (La.). 584 State v. Rogers (La.). 414 Stiles, State v. (Ala.).. 901 State, Satterfield v. (Ala.) 691 State v. Schrieber (La.)... Stinson v. M. F. Patterson & Son (Ala.).. 912 678 Stokes, State v. (La.). 664 State, Scott v. (Ala. App.) 152 Stonaker v. State (Ala. App.) 926 State, Shannon v. (Fla.). 829 Stout, In re (La.)... 193 State, Shaw v. (Fla.). State, Shipp v. (Miss.) 5 Stowers v. Birmingham (Ala. App.) 926 State, Shoemaker v. (Ala. App.). 925 Strauder v. Tuscaloosa (Ala. App.).. 927 State, Short v. (Ala. App.). 925 State v. Simpson (La.) 810 Strauss v. Insurance Co. of North America (La.) 861 Strickland v. State (Miss.). 75 State, Slaughter v (Ala. App.) State, Stonaker v. (Ala. App.) 151 927 Thomas v. Tupelo (Miss.) 347 Thompson v. Bedell (Fla.). 492 Tilley, Crosby v. (Miss.). 598 Tipton v. State (Ala. App.) 81 Tobey v. Boagni (La.).. 925 Stringfellow v. Nowlin Bros. (La.) 869 122 Stubblefield v. Wilson (Fla.).. 885 733 Sturrup, Grand Lodge, etc., v. (Fla.). 560 926 Succarnochee Lumber Co. v. Smith (Miss.) 302 926 Swilley v. Swilley (Fla.).. 12 783 12 5 927 515 Watkins v. Emmerson (Fla.) Weaver & Sons v. Dumas (Ala.) See End of Index for Tables of Southern Cases in State Reports THE SOUTHERN REPORTER VOLUME 102 LAUREL LIGHT & RY. CO. v. JQNES. (No. 23932.) (Supreme Court of Mississippi. Oct. 27, 1924. Suggestion of Error Overruled Dec. 15, 1924.) (Syllabus by the Court.) 1. Electricity 14(2) Placing uninsulated electric wire in tree branches adjoining school playground held negligence. A person or corporation using the dangerous agency of electricity is bound to exercise the highest degree of care, and it is negligence to place an uninsulated feed wire in the branches of trees adjoining a public school playground where such trees are of such nature as would attract children to climb them. 2. Electricity 16(7)—Company held not relieved from negligence on theory of intervening efficient cause. Where wires highly charged with electricity and uninsulated are strung through tops of trees where children habitually play, and a school boy 11 years of age attracted to the tree, and learning that a shock would be received if a person came in contact with the wires so exposed, placed a hay wire on the feed wire so negligently exposed, and a third person was injured by coming in contact with the hay wire, the company is liable for the injury; the negligence of the company in having such continuing situation being a contributing proximate cause of the injury. ETHRIDGE, J. The appellee was plaintiff in the court below and sued the appellant for personal injuries and recovered a verdict of $10,000. The appellant owns and operates a street car system in Laurel, Miss., and an interurban line from Laurel to Ellisville, and its cars run from Laurel to Ellisville and are operated by electricity generated at a power plant in Laurel, Miss. In operating its line to and through Ellisville, appellant uses not only the trolley wire but also a feed wire of approximately the same size of the trolley wire and carries about the same voltage. This feed wire is suspended on poles about 20 feet from the ground on the east side of the car tracks, and is attached to the same poles that support the braces that hold up the trolley wire. In addition to this wire, appellant has several small light wires fastened to cross-arms above this feed wire. The street car line in entering Ellisville passes along the street just west of the yard of Adjoining the the Ellisville public school. school lot is what is known as the Anderson lot. About 27. or 30 yards north of the school lot and about 8 feet west of the Anderson lot there are six persimmon trees. The defendant's feed wires and electric light wires pass through several of these persimmon trees about 20 feet from the ground. On the day of the injury to the plaintiff four boys about 11 years old attending the Ellisville public In furThe facts of the case examined and con- school planned to shock some one. sidered; a verdict for $10,000 for an injury re-therance of this plan, one of the boys got a ceived as shown in the opinion is not excessive. Anderson, J., dissenting. 3. Damages 132(8)—$10,000 for permanent injuries to 1 year old boy by contact with negligently placed uninsulated electric wire held not excessive. In Banc. wire, which is referred to in the record as a "hay wire," bent one end of it, climbed one of the persimmon trees until up beyond the feed wire, dropped the bent end of the "hay wire" Appeal from Circuit Court, Jones County; over the defendant's uninsulated feed wire, R. S. Hall, Judge. Action by Silas Jones, by next friend, against the Laurel Light & Railway Company. From a verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. and called to the plaintiff to take hold of the "hay wire," which the plaintiff did, and at once both his hands and the heel and toes of one foot were severely burned. The feed wire of the defendant is insulated within the For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes 102 SO.-1 even if it were insulated. limits of the city of Laurel, but is uninsulated appellee had the right to such reasonable use on its interurban line from the city limits of the streets for its poles and wires as the of Laurel to and through the city of Ellis- conditions existing at the time in the community ville. Plaintiff's testimony shows that the warranted. On the other hand, the appellant muscles of three fingers of his right hand had the reciprocal right. to what was a reasonable use of the streets on his part. The rights were so severely burned and drawn that the of the appellant and the appellee are mutual fingers were bent to the hand, rendering his and. reciprocal. Neither could so use his own right hand practically useless; that both rights as to wantonly injure the other. These hands were burned and the heel and toes of two correlative rights, if the law is obeyed, opone foot. The testimony shows that the erate in perfect harmony with each other. school children frequently climbed these per- There are no interferences, and no vacancies simmon trees and discovered that if they in the sphere of their harmonious movement. "The declaration shows that the tree in which touched the feed wire they would get a shock; that they climbed the trees and touch-sulated wire, was an oak tree, a little tree this boy was injured, by contact with an unined the wire to get the shock. The trees had abounding in branches extending almost to the been climbed so much that they had been ground-just such a tree as the small boys of worn slick. There was some conflict in the any community would be attracted to, and use, testimony as to whether it was practical to in their play. Whether this appellee knew that insulate the feed wire, and there was some this particular small boy was in the habit of testimony for the defendant that a rusty climbing this tree or not, it is clear from the wire such as the one used by these boys averments of the declaration that it did know would transmit electricity from the feed wire the tree, the kind of tree, and, knowing that, knew what any person of practical common sense would know-that it was just the kind of a tree that children might climb into to play in the branches. It is perfectly idle for the appellee to insist that it was not bound to have reasonably expected the small boys of the neighborhood to climb that sort of tree. The fact that such boy would, in all probability, climb that particular tree, being the kind of tree it was, was a fact which, according to every sound principle of law and common sense, this corporation must have anticipated. The argument that it did not almost suggests the query whether the individuals composing this corporation, its employees and agents, had forgotten that they were once small boys themselves. The immemorial habit of small boys to climb little oak trees filled with abundant branches reaching almost to the ground is a habit of which corporations stretching their wires over such trees must take notice. This court, so far as the exertion of its power in a legitimate way is concerned, intends to exert that power so as to secure, at the hands of these public utility corporations, handling and controlling these extraordinarily dangerous agencies, the very highest degree of skill and At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant moved the court to exclude all the testimony introduced for the plaintiff and to direct a verdict for the defendant. This motion was overruled. After the conclusion of all of the testimony the plaintiff requested a peremptory instruction, which was also refused. The first assignment of error challenges the correctness of the ruling of the court in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. It is insisted by the appellant that it is not liable even though it was negligence on its part to leave its feed wire uninsulated because it is contended that the act of the boy, Cooley, in attaching the hay wire to the feed wire, was an intervening efficient cause which constituted the proximate cause of the injury. In the opinion of the court it was negligence for the appellant to place and maintain an uninsulated feed wire through the branches of the trees, such as would attract boys of the age of these boys, 10 and 11 years of age, into the trees. [1] It is the settled law in this state that a person using electricity for business purposes is charged with the highest degree of care in the use of such electricity. In the case of Temple v. McComb Electric Light & Power Co., 89 Miss. 1, 42 So. 874, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 449, 119 Am. St. Rep. 698, 10 Ann. Cas. 924, this court, speaking through Judge Whitfield, said: care." In the case of Potera v. City of Brookhaven, 95 Miss. 774, 49 So. 617, this court reiterated the ruling in the Temple Case, supra. Speaking through Justice Smith, the court said: "Corporations, private or municipal, engaged in the business of transmitting electricity along highways, are charged with the very highest degree of care for the safety of persons lawfully "The citizens of a municipality have the right using the highway. They must not only propto the reasonable use of the streets, not only on erly erect their plants, but must maintain them their surface, but above their surface. Many in such conditions as not to endanger the pubuses of the streets, or the spaces above the lic. Temple v. Electric Light Co., 89 Miss. 1, 42 streets, may be readily imagined in cities, where So. 874, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 449, 119 Am. St. buildings are erected twenty to fifty stories Rep. 698; Walter v. Baltimore Electric Light high, that might not be available in an ordinary Co. (Md.) 71 Atl. 953. The mere fact that this town. The corporations handling the dangerous lamp, with the wires attached thereto, bearagency of electricity are bound, and justly ing their invisible, but deadly, current, had falbound, to the very highest measure of skill and len into the street, unexplained, was prima care in dealing with these deadly agencies. The facie evidence of negligence on the part of ap |