*1 Rousseau, defend- It is also sliown ant, actually possession the auto had been it was seized and which when most pretended having invariably possession after in his 9, 1932; sale, July intervener on driving two the auto been seen This three instances. defendant, neighbors ferry two of intervener and and intervener men defendant stream, creek or had occasion to cross some bought oil and and merchants where gas is that The fact run the auto. purchased gas car was oil paid paid for when not for defendant and account, charged even when was bought by Eugene to his Picou, intervener. character, With evidence pre correctly
think, that and held the court simulation, tended was a sale dismissed intervention. Judgment affirmed. PUBLIC LOUISIANA
BOURGOYNE et al. CO., Inc. UTILITIES
No. Appeal First Circuit. Louisiana. 5, 1933. Oct. Rightor, Orleans, ap- Edward of New for
pellants.
Carviile,
Plaquemine,
ap-
Carville
pellee.
Judge.
BLANC,
LE
appeal
This ease is on
from a
in the lower court in favor of a father and
mother for the use and benefit of
mi-
nor
him when
he
electrocuted
line
company during
of the defendant
the after-
July 9,
plaintiffs’ son,
noon of
1932. The
children,
play-
with other
ing
were accustomed to
open
belonging
Elphege
an
lot
to one
P.
town of
situated
the outskirts of the
Plaquemine.
On the afternoon that
he was
ated on the front of the
climbed a
tree situ-
lot,
which bordered on
road,
in order to catch a bird that
doing so,
had lit therein.
his head came
in contact
line of the
wRh
defendant which ran
thereby
alleged
he was
negligently
the line
uninsulated and
the tree
the defendant.
young boy’s injuries
were serious but
fortunately
fatal,
parents
sum
awarded the
for his
*2
69
dispute
that
not
the fact
Defendants do
court.
of tbe district
tbe
benefit
6,600
carried
wire which
this
addition,
to re-
allowed
was
father
In
the
not insulated.
of
defend that
current
volts
electric
was
and doc-
medical
§38.75
the sum of
cover
charge
ground
They
that
peti-
on the
The
had been incurred.
which
tor’s bills
require
to insulate.
law
not
them
the
separate
the fa-
demands
contained
tion
that,
certain munici
It is a fact
pal
of
pain
outside
and an-
mental
and mother
ther
regulations,
no
there is
ordinances and
of their
guish
account
each on
companies
statutory
power
in
to
however,
to
These,
order
injuries.
aban-
son’s
general
wires, and the
urged
sulate all of their
rule,
court,
not
and are
in the lower
doned
they
it,
not
are
as
that
we view
appeal.
nevertheless answer-
have
Plaintiffs
exception's
obliged to
so. Still
are
do
there
in
appeal,
pray
the
for an increase
the
and
ed
amount
that,
places
require
in
this
do
to
rule which
benefit of
the
allowed
country
in
-where
§2,000.
the
there
and localities
minor son to
their
people coming in
likelihood of
reasonable
up generally of admis-
made
answer is
wires, they
heavily
be
contact with
insulated. We had occasion
ence
loaded
petition,
allegations
the
of
to certain
sions
some
material
to make refer
very pertinent and
of which we
consider
in
case Bu
to this matter
the recent
of
negligence, and
issue,
the
of
to the
Co.,
jol
v. Gulf States Utilities
liability.
mainly
denials
of
of
consists
rest
then arises as to the nature
agreed state-
on an
case was submitted
place
in
the
character
this case was
the
which
of
at
seem to alter
which does not
of facts
ment'
the situation as
pleadings
presented
the
and,
all,
that
admitted
believe
the
much,
very
it
it
to the
if
does at
.We
playground
that this lot was a sort
show
advantage
plaintiffs, as it contains fur-
neighborhood
for' the children of the
it
where
by the defendant.
ther admissions
situated,
was
this was a
that
matter
sides have devoted
Counsel on both
knowledge
people living
of common
around. Such
charged
to the
space in their
to
'brief
a discus
considerable
knowledge
fairly
nuisance,
the
of attractive
sion of
doctrine
through
its
to the
officers
apply,
opinion does
as
in our
not
that
which
doctrine involves
employees
necessarily
to be
or
who
there
trespass,
and here there
at
times to attend to
certain
business
contrary,
trespass.
it is
no
On
company.
they
If
held to
their
ibe
such
pasture
Mr.
or
that
lot,
fendant,
knowledge,
duty
then rested on
them
with the
had no
whatever
de
connection
precaution
stringing
proper
in
take
high-powered
knowledge
and that
it was to his
seeing
they
wires
that
direct, consent,
implied, if
and with his
not
placed
posi
insulated or
such
were either
played
congregated and
that
these children
playing
that
near
tion
would not come
such manner as
this ease. It is matter
the children
them
therein.
just
in contact with them in
negligence charged
On
did
petition,
in the
it seems to
us
of common
notori
damaging
has
rather
admis-
fendant
ety,
frequently
courts have
of which
sions,
damaging
point
fact as to
almost
boys
judicial cognizance,
play
taken
liability.
directly
paragraph
to their
In
9
will,
places
there
are trees
follow
petition,
of
climbed
it
is averred that
child ing
instincts,
into
their natural
climb
these
bird, and
the tree to catch the
then
birds,
trees,
gather
it be to
whether
catch
specific allegation
“in
is made that
do-
nuts,
stunts,
any
fruits or
do acrobatic
so,
ing
his,
through
fault of
no
head came thing else. There are no cases cited from high power
in contact with an uninsulated
of this state
brief of either
courts
counsel
defendant, negligently
line of
the
subject.
bearing on
The case of
this
Fuscia
answer,
tree
them.”
Light
al.,
et
& Power Co.
2
al. v. Central
et
legations
paragraph
of fact
are de-
App. 195, involved facts somewhat
La.
simi
nied, but,
agreed
come
when we
to read the
presented,
precise
lar
here
but the
to those
statement of facts
submitted,
6, 7, 8,
which the case was
under
issue here
have
not refer to it
discussion
not
2, 3,
5,4,
we find
“articles
raised, or,
was,
if
it
court does
plaintiffs’ petition
are ad-
9
opinion.
There
its
are nu
mitted.”
strikes us that
this admission
jurisdic
of other
merous decisions
courts
carries with more than an
it
admission of a tions, however, holding
utility
com
law;
it
mere conclusion
seems to us to be panies
under
liable
facts and circumstances
high-pow-
an
ered
it
admission of the
that this
presented
as
such
to few of
are
here. We refer
uninsulated,
running
wire
and that
perti
seem to be the most
in that
condition
this tree at that
Godfrey
Light
Co.,
&
v. Kansas
nent:
Power
particular place
negligence
on their
233;
S. W.
299 Mo.
Power &
253
Sweeten v. Pacific
part.
88 Wash.
153 P.
But,
though
1054; Talkington Washington
even
v.
admission did
Water
Pow
carry
386, 165
it,
Company,
87;
all
Temple
Wash.
P.
the force we attribute to
96
erwe
City Electric Light
believe that
McComb
the admitted facts
Power
otherwise
prove
negligence complained
(N. S.) 449,
11 R. A.
tend