Adams v. Bullock

Nature of the Case

This is a negligence case examining unreasonable risk and standard of care.

Facts

Bullock (D) owned ran a trolley line that had overhead wires. Adams (P) was crossing a bridge that went over some railroad tracks. Pedestrians often used the bridge as a short cut and children played on it. Adams was swinging a wire which came into contact with the exposed wires of Bullock’s trolley wire running beneath the bridge structure. Adams was shocked and burned when the wires came in contact.

Adams brought this personal injury lawsuit. The trial court awarded for Adams and the appellate court affirmed. Bullock appealed.

Issues

  1. Is there a duty for a trolley company to adopt all reasonable precautions to minimize injury from exposed electric wires?
  2. In order for there to be negligence must the accident and its manner of occurrence be foreseeable in the exercise of a high degree of vigilance?

Holding and Rule of Law

  1. Yes. There is a duty for a trolley company to adopt all reasonable precautions to minimize injury from exposed electric wires.
  2. Yes. In order for there to be negligence the accident and its manner of occurrence must be foreseeable in the exercise of a high degree of vigilance.

There is a duty for a trolley company to adopt all reasonable precautions to minimize injury from exposed electric wires. There was no way to avert the possibility of this type of accident besides abandoning the overhead system and putting the wires underground, they could not be insulated. There was no special danger that warned Bullock that special precautions should be taken. No accident like this had happened before, and Bullock did not disregard any custom.

‘Reasonable care in the use of a destructive agency imports a high degree of vigilance.’ No vigilance in this case could have predicted where this type of accident would occur. Bullock is not an insurer against unforeseeable accidents.

Disposition

Reversed.


Related posts: