Wyrulec Co. v. Schutt
Wyoming Supreme Court
1Concurrence
*763CARDINE, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result but dissent from that portion of the opinion under “Standard of Care.” This case involves an accident in which appellee touched a low voltage line and fell. Low voltage electricity is not ultrahaz-ardous. It is something encountered in ordinary, normal daily activities when plugging in the coffee pot or toaster. It is like driving a car, something everyone does in the business of daily living; and so the activity is ordinary, and the duty is ordinary care. But the opinion assumes the activity (low voltage electricity) to be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. LikeWyoming Supreme Court · 1963
- Kyle A. Ruhs v. Pacific Power & Light, a Maine CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1982
- Case v. GossWyoming Supreme Court · 1989
- Citizens Coach Co. v. CollierSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961