Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Garland
314 Ky. 252, 27 A.L.R. 2d 198, 234 S.W.2d 753 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An electric company is liable under the attractive nuisance doctrine when it maintains uninsulated, high-voltage wires through an easily climbable tree in an area frequented by children, as the company has a duty to anticipate the natural curiosity and play habits of children.
Facts:
- Floyd Garland, an eleven-year-old boy, lived in the Glendon Mining Camp, an area housing 25 families with many children, located 150-200 yards from the accident site.
- A sugar maple tree with low branches and a small stump beneath it, making it very enticing to small boys, was located on a steep slope 35 feet from a state highway and 26 feet on a direct horizontal plane from the highway shoulder.
- Eight to ten feet beyond the tree was an abandoned county road occasionally used as a public passway, with a creek running a few feet beyond it.
- The Utilities Company maintained uninsulated transmission wires carrying 4,000 volts through the branches of this tree, and a nearby pole leaned, bringing the lines within five feet of the tree trunk.
- Children from the mining camp regularly played along the banks of the creek, in the bushes, and climbed this particular tree, which was easily climbed and offered a good hiding place.
- In July 1947, Floyd Garland climbed the tree to cut a fork for his slingshot, came into contact with a live wire, received an electric shock and burns, and fell to the ground unconscious.
- Floyd sustained burns on his leg, fingers, toes, and head (resulting in a scar and bald spot), and experienced severe nervousness, restless sleep, vomiting, and aches after the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Floyd Garland, an eleven-year-old boy, sued the Utilities Company in a trial court for personal injuries.
- The trial court rendered a judgment for $2,000 in favor of Floyd Garland.
- The Utilities Company, as the appellant, sought a reversal of the trial court's judgment, arguing it was entitled to a directed verdict (i.e., that the evidence was insufficient to find them liable as a matter of law).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an electric company liable under the attractive nuisance doctrine when a child is injured by uninsulated high-voltage wires running through an easily climbable tree in an area known to be frequented by children, even if the tree is on private property?
Opinions:
Majority - Stanley, Commissioner
Yes, an electric company is liable when a child is injured by uninsulated high-voltage wires running through an easily climbable tree in an area known to be frequented by children. The court reasoned that maintaining high voltage, uninsulated wires through thick tree foliage creates an inherently dangerous condition which the electric company's employees should have observed and rectified. While the tree itself is harmless, its combination with the charged wires transformed it into an "attractive, dangerous instrumentality" on the defendant's premises, which is the core of the attractive nuisance doctrine. The court emphasized that electric companies, exercising the highest degree of care, must anticipate the natural propensities of children, including their love of adventure, innocence, and heedlessness of danger, and should reasonably expect them to play in such locations and climb such trees. This duty of anticipation is paramount, whether the dangerous condition is on public or private property. The opinion cited precedents such as Chickering v. Lincoln County Power Co. and Temple v. McComb Electric Light & Power Co., which recognized the "immemorial habit of small boys to climb" and the high degree of care required of utility corporations handling dangerous agencies.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and reinforces the application of the attractive nuisance doctrine to utility companies, particularly concerning the maintenance of high-voltage lines in areas accessible to children. It establishes that the foreseeability of a child's interaction with a dangerous instrumentality, even if the child is technically a trespasser, creates a duty of care for the property owner. The emphasis on 'anticipation' of children's natural play habits, rather than mere 'actual knowledge,' broadens the scope of liability for companies dealing with inherently dangerous items. The ruling provides strong precedent for requiring utility companies to proactively inspect and secure their equipment in areas where children are likely to be present, influencing future cases involving child injuries near utility infrastructure.
