The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Thе plaintiff, administratrix of Edward Parsons, alleges that her intestate’s death was caused by cоming in contact with a wire of the defendant, Gordon. Telephone Company, which, having fallen across the wire of the Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Comрany, was highly charged with electricity. The liability of the telephone company is not involved in this appeal. In the complaint it is alleged that the wires of the Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company, from which the fatal current was transmitted to the telephone wire, “were defectively, insufficiently, carelessly and negligently insulated, and the said defendant, its agents and servants, were well aware of said want of insulation, or could have been aware of the same by the exercise of proper diligenсe.”
The Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company interposed the following demurrer to the complaint : “That the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant, Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company, in that there is no- allegation in the complaint, еither that the said Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company had notice of the fact that a wire of the Gordon Telephone Company had broken and fallen across one of its wires between Meeting and Anson streets, or that sufficient length of time had elapsed after the breaking of the said wire and the falling of the same ovеr the wire of this defendant for the same to have been discovered by the Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company, by due diligence or proper cаre.”
From an order overruling the demurrer, the Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company appeals.
*307 By the demurrer, appellant, in effect, submits to the Court this proposition: Admitting that the wires of the Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Cоmpany were strung below the telephone wires, and “defectively, insufficiently, carelessly and negligently insulated,” and that that fact was known to the Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gаs and Electric Company, or could have been known to it by the exercise of prоper diligence, yet that company, as a matter of law, would be exempt from liаbility for death of a pedestrian who without fault came in contact with a telephone wire which had fallen across the negligently insulated wire, and received the deadly сharge from it, unless the Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company had nоtice that the telephone wire had fallen across its wire to1 the street, or a sufficient length of time had elapsed after the fall and contact for the company to discover it by the exercise of due diligence.
The extent to which wires conveying dеadly electric currents should be insulated or otherwise guarded must be decided by the jury under the facts of each case. No rule of law can be laid down on the subject. Bridger v. Railroad Company, 25 S. C., 24.
The rule as to the degree of care in the use of electricity is the same as in the use of steam and other agencies — the care must be proportionate to the dаnger. In determining the danger, it is the duty of those in control to have in view all the surroundings, including the cоntiguity of other wires and their liability to fall and come in contact with the dangerously chargеd wire. As said by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in
Anderson
v.
Jersey City Electric Light Co.,
Hencе, when the plaintiff states that the discharge of the fatal current from appellant’s hеavily charged wire through the telephone wire was due to defective and negligent insulation, a good cause of action is stated.
Having held that a good cause of action is stated against appellant, without regard to> its actual knowledge of the fаllen wire or its diligence in discovering it, it follows that the demurrer cannot be sustained.
The judgment of this Court is, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.