Cooley v. Public Service Co.

10 A.2d 673 (N.H. 1940)

 Takeaway: Where the danger of two classes of persons cannot be guarded at the same
time, only the most immediate and injurious risks need to be protected
 Facts:
o Defendant maintained un-insulated electric lines above telephone lines. During a
severe winter storm, Defendant’s power line broke and hit a telephone line.
 At that moment, Plaintiff was using the telephone when suddenly a loud
noise came through.
o Plaintiff fainted and fell to the floor. She suffered a very rare neurosis with severe
physical consequences (loss of sensation on left side).
 Plaintiff sued the telephone company and Defendant for negligence to
recover damages.
 The jury found for the telephone company but against the
Defendant. The Defendant appealed.
 Issue:  Is Defendant liable to Plaintiff for negligence when Plaintiff is not capable of
suggesting a safer possible precaution Defendant could have undertaken without entailing
a greater risk to the lives of others?
 Rule:
o The law could not tolerate the theory of “be liable if you do and be liable if you
don’t.”
 Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff when there is no way to prevent
Plaintiff’s rare and remote injury without exposing the public to an
obvious and immediate injury.
 Holding: Public exercised appropriate standard of care in taking security precautions for
its wires that would benefit a majority of the population and is not liable for the incidental
damage experienced by Cooley.
 Reasoning:
o An individual exercising the appropriate standard of care given the circumstances
is not liable for any incidental damages occurring to others from his conduct.
o In determining whether the appropriate standard of care was used, it is useful to
consider the relative benefit to society versus the potential detriment to
individuals who may be harmed by incidental damages.
o A reasonably prudent person will typically exercise a level of care that will
benefit the majority of people even if it possibly produces harm to a few
individuals.
o At trial, Cooley alleged Public could have used a different design for its wiring
such as a basket to catch any wires that fall.
o However, evidence showed that such a design could prevent loud noises traveling
through phone lines, but would ultimately increase the risk of electrocution to
people traveling on the street.
 If Public had a duty at all, it was to protect the majority of people on the
street from electrocution rather than to protect phone users from incidental
damage that may result from loud noises in the event of falling wires.
 A device might exist which protects both phone users and people on the
street, but the burden to show its practicability was on Cooley.
 Cooley did not satisfy this burden, and thus Public is not liable for
failing to use such a device.