Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co., 75 S.E.2d 766 (N.C. 1953). · Go Syfert
Search
Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co., 75 S.E.2d 766 (N.C. 1953). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: No. 82-1559 (ca4, 1983-06-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." No. 82-1559 (2×)
4th Cir. · 1983 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Williams, supra, with Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co., 237 N.C. 693 , 75 S.E.2d 766 (1953).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Martin v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (2×)
4th Cir. · 1983 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Williams, supra, with Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co., 237 N.C. 693 , 75 S.E.2d 766 (1953).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. Duke Power Co. (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co., 237 N.C. 693 , 75 S.E. 2d 766 (1953); Deese v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 234 N.C. 558 , 67 S.E. 2d 751 (1951).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RICHARD B. PUGH, Administrator of the Estate of RICHARD B. PUGH, JR., Deceased,
v.
TIDEWATER POWER COMPANY, and CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
599.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 6, 1953.
75 S.E.2d 766
Robert E. Galder for plaintiff, appellant. , Poisson, Campbell •& Marshall, A. Y. Arledge, and Ernest 8. Delaney, Jr., for defendants, appellees.
Ervin.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
EeviN, J.

We take it for granted without so adjudging for the purpose of this particular appeal that the Tidewater Power Company was charged with notice that children were in the habit of flying kites in the vicinity of the high voltage wires by the mere circumstance that the observable remnants of a kite were hanging on the wires during several weeks next preceding the tragedy. We are nevertheless constrained to affirm the compulsory nonsuit. It is a matter of common knowledge that[*695] children ordinarily use strings, which are nonconductors of electricity, in flying kites. Watral’s Adm'r v. Appalachian Power Co., 273 Ky. 25, 115 S.W. 2d 372; Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co., 193 Wash. 51, 74 P. 2d 898. The evidence at the trial did not disclose any facts sufficient to charge the Tidewater Power Company with notice that a metal wire might be put to such a use. In consequence, the tragedy was not within the reasonable anticipation of the Tidewater Power Company. Stanley v. Smithfield, 211 N.C. 386, 190 S.E. 207; Parker v. R. R., 169 N.C. 68, 85 S.E. 33; Caraglio v. Frontier Power Co., 192 F. 2d 175; Croxton v. Duke Power Co., 181 F. 2d 306; Garrett v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 218 Ark. 575, 237 S.W. 2d 895; Callaway v. Central Georgia Power Co., 43 Ga. App. 820, 160 S.E. 703; Dilley v. Iowa Public Service Co., 210 Iowa 1332, 227 N.W. 173; Fredericks’ Admr. v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 276 Ky. 13, 122 S.W. 2d 1000; Watral’s Adm’r v. Appalachian Power Co., supra; Kelley v. Texas Utilities Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 115 S.W. 2d 1233; Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co., supra; 18 Am. Jur., Electricity, section 53; 29 C.J.S., Electricity, section 42.

The cases invoked by the plaintiff, to wit, Benton v. Public-Service Corporation, 165 N.C. 354, 81 S.E. 448, and Ferrell v. Cotton Mills, 157 N.C. 528, 73 S.E. 142, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 64, are distinguishable.

Affirmed.