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

P's decedent was involved in the movement of a large steel tank by means of a crane with a 60-foot boom. Decedent walked alongside the tank to steady it. A boom came close enough to high-tension lines that electricity from those lines arced over to the boom. Another arc of electricity arced from the tank over to decedent and killed him. D had at one time owned the transmission lines involved. On November 14, 1966, D sold the lines and equipment to Paxton & Vierling. D thereafter sold electricity to Paxton & Vierling and when so requested made repairs upon the lines and equipment. D had no duty to maintain the lines and had not been requested to discontinue the flow of electricity on the date of the accident nor put on notice that a crane was being operated in the vicinity of the lines. As a result, there was no duty owed and the court granted summary judgment to D. P appealed.

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.