Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceliabilityverdict
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceliabilitytrialmotionsustained

Related Cases

Gore v. People’s Sav. Bank, 40 Conn.App. 219, 670 A.2d 332
View Case »
Stone v. Essex County Newspapers, Inc., 367 Mass. 849, 330 N.E.2d 161
View Case »
Keep v. Quallman, 68 Wis. 451, 32 N.W. 233
View Case »
Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp., 125 N.J. 421, 593 A.2d 733, 60 USLW 2112, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,222
View Case »
Valdez v. City of New York, 18 N.Y.3d 69, 960 N.E.2d 356, 936 N.Y.S.2d 587, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07252
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Richards v. Kansas Elec. Power Co., 126 Kan. 521, 268 P. 847

Facts

Charles Elliott Richards lived with his family on a farm and had requested the Kansas Electric Power Company to disconnect the electric wires from his house while he moved it. An employee of the company advised against disconnecting the power, instead providing additional wire that was improperly installed. During a storm, the temporary wires caught fire, leading to Richards' son being shocked, and when Richards attempted to rescue him, he was electrocuted and died. The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the power company for failing to install adequate safety measures.

Issue

Did the Kansas Electric Power Company act negligently in the installation and maintenance of electrical wiring, contributing to the wrongful death of Charles Elliott Richards?

Defendant presents but one question for our review. It contends that it was entitled to judgment on the special findings of the jury, particularly on the two following: “6. Do you find that the wires were struck by lightning, and if so was that fact the direct and proximate cause of the injury sustained by the deceased? A. Yes. * * * 9. If you find the defendant company negligent, state what particular acts constituted such negligence. A. Insufficient groundage was not installed at transformers and that the one said Miles did not make such connections or disconnections for said company on plaintiff's request.”

Rule

A defendant may be held liable for negligence if their failure to exercise reasonable care contributes to an injury, even if an act of God, such as lightning, is also involved in causing the injury.

A defendant is not relieved of liability for negligence on the excuse that the “proximate cause” was some act of God, like a stroke of lightning, where the act of God would not have wrought the injury but for the human negligence which contributed thereto.

Analysis

The court analyzed the jury's findings, particularly focusing on the negligence of the power company in failing to install proper grounding devices. Despite the jury's finding that lightning was a proximate cause of the incident, the court emphasized that the negligence of the defendant was a contributing factor to the death. The court concluded that the jury's findings regarding negligence were valid and that the defendant could not escape liability simply because an act of God was involved.

In overruling defendant's motion for judgment the trial court so minimized the second part of finding No. 6 that it was virtually set aside, as it should have been. The court said: “I have never attached so very much importance to the answer of the jury to question 6, even admitting that it is an affirmative answer to both angles of the question. The answer made by the jury cannot change the fact, and in this case, under the record, the jury having found what the negligence was, if in fact there was any, I believe it becomes a question for the court to say what was the proximate cause of the injury.”

Conclusion

The court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the Kansas Electric Power Company's negligence was a proximate cause of the wrongful death of Charles Elliott Richards.

The judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

Myrtle M. Richards, administratrix of the estate of Charles Elliott Richards, prevailed because the court found that the Kansas Electric Power Company's negligence contributed to the death, despite the defendant's claims regarding lightning.

You must be