Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtEeviN, 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 children ordinarily use strings, which are nonconductors of electricity, in flying kites. Watral’s Adm'r v. Appalachian…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Benton v. North Carolina Public-Service Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Garrett v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
- Ferrell v. Dixie Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Watral's Adm'r v. Appalachian Power Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1938
- Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1937
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Williams v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Foote v. Scott-New Madrid-Mississippi Electric CooperativeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1962
- Ingold v. Carolina Power & Light CompanyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
- Davis v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Brown v. Duke Power Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.