Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Wyrulec Co. v. Schutt

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1993No. 93-31, 93-32Published

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

  1. Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. LikeWyoming Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Kyle A. Ruhs v. Pacific Power & Light, a Maine CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1982
  3. Case v. GossWyoming Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Citizens Coach Co. v. CollierSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API