Legal Opinion
Cahill v. Sho-Me Power Corp.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided August 18, 1983No. 12966PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAUS, Presiding Judge.
Plaintiffs Daniel M. Cahill and Carolyn Cahill, his wife, seek damages from defendant Sho-Me Power Corporation for personal injuries to the husband. In general, Cahill was injured when he and a fellow employee were attempting to erect an aluminum flagpole in a commercial area in the vicinity of a 69,000 volt electric transmission line of Sho-Me. The transmission line was 27 feet and 3 inches above the ground. The flagpole was approximately 30 feet in length. When the two men were “walking” the flagpole to an upright position, it came into contact with or very close to…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Parmer v. BeanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1982
- Gladden v. Missouri Public Service CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
- Hamilton v. Laclede Electric CooperativeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
- School District of Springfield R-12 Ex Rel. Midland Paving Co. v. Transamerica Insurance Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1982
- Erbes v. Union Electric CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Clary v. United Telephone Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1984
- Stephens v. Sho-Me Power Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1983