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

On December 24 or 25, 1965, 114 hogs belonging to Ps were electrocuted when an electrical line constructed and maintained by D was knocked down by a partially dead tree that fell during a period of high winds. D held an oil lease on the property where the incident occurred and was conducting a secondary oil recovery operation in the area. Ps were agricultural lessees on the particular tract of land where the hogs were electrocuted. D's secondary recovery operation involved pumping water into certain wells to force the remaining oil to pool. D had erected electrical lines to operate the necessary pumps. The pumps had not been utilized in the recovery operation for a period of two years. The lines had been left connected and were still energized at the time the hogs were electrocuted. Evidence shows that it would have taken only five minutes to disconnect them. A dead tree fell during a period of high winds, with gusts of up to fifty miles an hour, and brought the lines down. The jury found D liable for $6000. D appealed. D contends that the trial court should have granted a peremptory instruction because there was insufficient evidence of negligence in the construction, maintenance, and operation of the lines to raise a jury question.

The legal issues presented in 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.