Small v. Southern Public Utilities Co.
158 S.E. 385
N.C.
1931
Check Treatment
Stacy, C. J.

The ease was properly submitted to the jury on authority of what was said iu Starr v. Tel. Co., 156 N. C., 435, 72 S. E., 484; Lawrence v. Power Co., 190 N. C., 664, 130 S. E., 735; Carpenter v. Power Co., 191 N. C., 130, 131 S. E., 400, McAllister v. Pryor, 187 N. C., 832, 123 S. E., 92; Shaw v. Public Service Corp., 168 N. C., 611, 84 S. E., 1010; Turner v. Power Co., 154 N. C., 131, 69 S. E., 767; Harrington v. Wadesboro, 153 N. C., 437, 69 S. E., 399; Arrington v. Pinetops, 197 N. C., 433, 149 S. E., 549.

Due to the deadly and latently dangerous character of electricity, the degree of care required of persons, corporate or individual, furnishing electric light and power to others for private gain, has been variously stated. “The utmost degree of care,” was the language adopted and approved in Haynes v. Gas Co., 114 N. C., 203, 19 S. E., 344. “The danger is great, and the care and watchfulness must be commensurate with it,” said Burwell, J., in delivering the opinion. And in Turner v. Power Co., supra, Holce, J., used this language: “Owing to the very dangerous nature of electricity and the serious and often fatal consequences of negligent default in its control and use, the law imposes a very high degree of care upon companies who manufacture and furnish it.”

Following are some of the various expressions found in the decisions: “Highest degree of care” (Ellis v. Power Co., 193 N. C., 357, 137 S. E., 163) ; “highest degree of care in maintenance and inspection” (Benton v. Public Service Corp., 165 N. C., 354, 81 S. E., 448); “high skill, the most consummate care and caution, and the utmost diligence and foresight . . . consistent with practical operation” (Turner v. Power Co., 167 N. C., 630, 83 S. E., 744); “greatest degree of care and constant vigilance” (Mitchell v. Electric Co., 129 N. C., 166, 39 S. E., 801); “very high degree of care” (Harrington v. Wadesboro, supra); “all reasonable precaution” (Turner v. Power Co., 154 N. C., 131); “utmost care and prudence consistent with practical operation” (Helms v. Power Co., 192 N. C., 784, 136 S. E., 9); “rule of the prudent man” (Hicks v. Tel. Co., 157 N. C., 519, 73 S. E., 139); “highest skill . . . which is attainable, consistent with practical operation” (Electric Co. v. Lawrence, 31 Col., 308); “necessary care and prudence to prevent injury” (Love v. Power Co., 86 W. Va., 397). In Parker v. Electric Ry. Co., 169 N. C., 68, 85 S. E., 33, a nonsuit was sustained because “the evidence showed that the defendant had exercised every possible care.” Ragan v. Traction Co., 170 N. C., 92, 86 S. E., 1001.

In approving these formulae as to the degree of care required in such cases, it is not to be supposed that there is a varying standard of duty *722 by which responsibility for negligence is to be determined.' Helms v. Power Co., supra. The standard is always the rule of the prudent man, or the care which a prudent man ought to use under like circumstances. What reasonable care is, of course, varies in different cases and in the presence of different conditions. Fitzgerald v. R. R., 141 N. C., 530, 54 S. E., 391. The standard is due care, and due care means commensurate care under the circumstances. Hanes v. Shapiro, 168 N. C., 24, 84 S. E., 33; 9 R. C. L., 1200.

While the jury would have been fully justified in returning a contrary verdict on the defendant’s evidence, we think the plaintiff’s evidence is amply sufficient as against a demurrer.

The record is free from reversible error, hence the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.