Floyd v. Nash
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Per curiam
There is no evidence in the record to show, or to support an inference, that the Power Company knew of the existence of the feed tank or had any notice that it would be constructed. It was built after the power line was constructed and in use. This distinguishes the present case from Essick v. Lexington, 233 N.C. 600, 65 S.E. 2d 220, and brings it within the rule of Philyaw v. Kinston, 246 N.C. 534, 98 S.E. 2d 791, insofar as negligence by the Power Company is concerned.
It is not negligence per se for a power company to run an uninsulated wire 19 feet above the ground along its right of way…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lewis v. BarnhillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Mintz v. Town of MurphySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Essick v. City of LexingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Davis v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Philyaw v. City of KinstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
3Cited by15 opinions
- Williams v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Martishius v. Carolco Studios, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2002
- Hale v. Duke Power Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- Lambert v. Duke Power Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
- Partin v. Carolina Power and Light Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.