The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

For many years, D had made it a practice to admit to its substation groups of students on inspection trips. P, a boy 19 years old and six feet one inch tall, was in the second year of a course on electrical construction at Wentworth Institute. The laboratory there contained no high voltage installations, but the class had received some theoretical instruction on high tension, and the instructor had warned against the danger of coming in contact with, or in near proximity to, exposed high voltage parts. P and about twenty-five of his classmates went to inspect D's electrical substation. Cates, the chief operator of the substation, escorted the party through the building, explaining the equipment and answering questions. They went first through the main switchboard room, thence by a passageway to the assembly room, and from there through a door, which Cates unlocked, into the high tension room where the accident happened. Two signs marked 'Danger' were visible in the main switchboard room, but there were no danger signs in the assembly room, nor on the door of the high tension room, nor anywhere within the latter room. Cates gave no special warning to the boys as he led them into this, the most dangerous, room in the substation, nor did P receive any warning from his 3 instructors present on the tour at this time. P stood near a current transformer where the cylindrical tank of the transformer rested on a steel stand or support. Mounted on the tank was a porcelain bushing or insulator which emerged about two inches of an uninsulated copper conductor. Attached to this copper conductor were two copper tubings rising vertically to the ceiling. Current is conducted in and out of the transformer through the tubings. Also attached to the copper conductor at the top of the bushing were two metal brackets extending horizontally for several inches out toward the aisle. These brackets supported an inverted glass jar containing a bypass protector or lightning arrestor. The two terminals under the bypass protector, to which the horizontal brackets were attached, each ended in a brass stud that was live and uninsulated. These terminal studs, and the other exposed live parts, namely, the copper conductor leading out of the top of the bushing and the horizontal metal brackets, were about seven feet from the floor, well within the reach of a grown man standing in the aisle nearby the current transformer unit. A qualified expert put on by Ps testified that according to recognized principles of safety in installing high voltage equipment, unguarded live parts should have a minimum vertical clearance of nine feet six inches above the floor, or 'well out of reach' by an inadvertent gesture of the hand. One of the boys asked P what the glass jar was, and P said, 'He means this,' or words to that effect, pointing with his left hand toward the bypass protector. He did not touch anything, but the tip of his finger came within one, two, or three inches of the terminal studs under the glass jar. A blinding flash occurred as current jumped from the terminal to P's finger. He fell to the floor unconscious and severely injured. At the close of Ps’ evidence, D moved for a directed verdict claiming that P was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, that there was no evidence on which a jury could reasonably find D negligent, and that P was a bare licensee who must take the premises as he found them. Ps got the verdict, and D appealed.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.