Conowingo Power Co. v. State of Maryland, 4 Cir., 120 F.2d 870; Mares v. New Mexico Public Service Co., 42 N.M. 473, 82 P.2d 257. Lozano v. Pacific Gas Electric Co., 70 Cal.App.2d 415, 161 P.2d 74; Oklahoma Gas Electric Co. v. Wilson, 172 Okla. 540, 45 P.2d 750; Troidle v. Adirondack Power Light Corp., 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E. 654. The failure to fence the posts or to put warning signs thereon was not negligence. The transformer had been in the same location since the line was constructed.

not rest on speculation, surmise or conjecture. 18 Am. Jur., Electricity, p. 448, Sec. 53; Woodland Gin Co. v. Moore, 103 Miss. 447, 60 So. 574; Illinois Cent. Railroad Co. v. Bloodworth, 166 Miss. 602, 145 So. 333; Hammontree v. Cobb Construction Co., 168 Miss. 844, 152 So. 279; C. G.R.R. Co. v. Coleman, 172 Miss. 514, 160 So. 277; Roberts v. Miss. Power Light Co., 193 Miss. 627, 10 So.2d 542; Webb v. La. Power Light Co., (La.), 199 So. 451; Vincent v. Barnhill, 203 Miss. 740, 34 So.2d 363, 364; Ovette Land Lbr. Co. v. Adams, 109 Miss. 740, 68 So. 499; Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Saffold, 125 Miss. 407, 87 So. 893; Graham v. Brummett, 182 Miss. 580, 181 So. 721; Woolworth Co. v. Freeman, 11 So.2d 447; Stokes v. Adams-Newell, 151 Miss. 711, 118 So. 441; Newell Contracting Co. v. Flynt, 172 Miss. 719, 161 So. 298; Martin v. Beck, 177 Miss. 303, 171 So. 14; Bunten v. Houston, Minnesota Power Co., 228 N.W. 332; American General Ins. Co. v. Southwestern Gas Electric Co., 115 F.2d 706; Troidle v. Adirondack Power Light Corp., 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E. 654; Green v. West Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 246 Pa. 340, 92 A. 341; Sweatman v. Los Angeles Gas Electric Corp., 101 Cal. 318, 281 P. 677; Geroski v. Allegheny County Light Co., 247 Pa. 304, 93 A. 338; Miss. Power Co. v. Thomas, 162 Miss. 734, 140 So. 227; Pearce v. Mountain State Telephone Telegraph Co., 173 P. 871; 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, Sec. 290; Waddle v. Sutherland, 156 Miss. 540, 126 So. 201; Wheeler v. Laurel Bottling Works, 110 Miss. 442, 71 So. 743; 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, Sec. 300; 45 C.J. p. 1214; Sanders v. Smith, 200 Miss. 551, 27 So.2d 889; American General Ins. Co. v. Southwestern Gas Electric Co., 115 F.2d 706; I.C.R.R. Co. v. Cathey, 70 Miss. 332; I.C.R.R. Co. v. Jones, 16 So. 300; I.C.R.R. Co. v. Wooley, 77 Miss. 927, 28 So. 26; Roell v. Brooks, 205 Miss. 255, 38 So.2d 716; Serio v. I.C.R.R. Co., 54 So.2d 481; Southworth v. Shea, 131 Ala. 419, 30 So. 774; Kramer Service v. Wilkins, 184 Miss. 483, 186 So. 625; Patton v. Texas P.R. Co., 179 U.S. 658, 45 L.Ed. 361; Betc

There was no latent defect or unknown danger in the wire. In the cases in which electric companies have been held liable as the result of contact with a high tension wire the companies had knowledge that work was being done in the area of the wire and, having knowledge, failed to properly warn, deenergize or reposition the wire (see, e.g., Collins v City of New York, 28 N.Y.2d 910; Troidle v Adirondack Power Light Corp., 252 N.Y. 483; Mikolasko v New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 8 A.D.2d 648, mot for lv to app den 7 N.Y.2d 707; Ostrom v Patchogue Elec. Light Co., 32 A.D.2d 671; Nicholas v New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 283 App. Div. 291, 299). Lilco was not bound to use the best methods or to have the safest line (cf. Garthe v Ruppert, 264 N.Y. 290, 296), but was merely bound to keep the line in a reasonably safe and appropriate condition. This it did.

Both parties concede that the law of New York is applicable in this case. Central argues that its position on this point is sustained by Troidle v. Adirondack Power Light Corp., 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E. 654, and Buell v. Utica Gas Electric Co., 259 N.Y. 443, 182 N.E. 77. But under the Ward, Bennett and Pike decisions, supra, the doctrine of the cases cited by Central has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. Moreover, it is to be noted that in the Buell case the court carefully pointed out that the victim, his employer and the defendant had notice of the dangerous instrumentality.

Cases from other jurisdictions seem to sustain the view that we have reached. Merlo v. Public Service Co., 381 Ill. 300, 45 N.E.2d 665; Maggard v. Appalachian Power Co., 111 W. Va. 470, 163 S.E. 27; Troidle v. Adirondack Power Light Co., 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E. 654; Aljoe v. Pennsylvania Power Light Co., 281 Pa. 368, 126 A. 759; Stackpole v. Pacific Gas Electric Co., 181 Cal. 700, 186 P. 354; Reiland v. Wisconsin Valley Electric Co., 202 Wis. 449, 233 N.W. 91. There is force in what was said by the District Judge, in his opinion below: "Criticisms were made of some of the placing and type of poles used in the line and as to whether they were properly supported by guy wires and whether proper inspection had been made of the line. If any defect in the wire such as a lowering or sag or break or other occurrence had been shown, these items of evidence might be pertinent.

Pina v. Cape Vineyard Elec. Co. (Mass.), 193 N.E. 563; Pine Bluff Co. v. Bobbit, 168 Ark. 1019, 273 S.W. 1; Pjahler v. Pa. Power Light Co. (Pa.), 40 A.2d 692; Quitman v. Elder (Ga.), 190 S.E. 445; Reiland v. Wis. Valley Elec. Co., 202 Wis. 499, 233 N.W. 91; Richmond v. Fla. Light Power Co., 58 So.2d 687; Roberts v. Miss. Power Light Co., 193 Miss. 627, 10 So.2d 542; Rushing v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 203 N.C. 434; 166 S.E. 300; Smith v. Texas Elec. Service Co., 85 S.W.2d 808; Southern Pine Elec. Power Assn. v. Denson, 214 Miss. 397, 57 So.2d 859; Southwestern Gas Elec. Co. v. Deshazo, 199 Ark. 1078, 138 S.W.2d 397; State v. Consolidated Gas, Elec. Light Power Co. of Baltimore, 159 Md. 138, 150 A. 452; State v. Eastern Shore Gas Elec. Co. of Maryland, 155 Md. 660, 142 A. 503; Sturdivant v. Crosby Lbr. Mfg. Co., 218 Miss. 91, 65 So.2d 291; Thomas v. Wis. Power Light Co., 213 Wis. 646, 252 N.W. 192; Thompson v. Purcel, 76 S.E. 266; T.P. R. Co., v. Bingham, 38 S.W. 162; Troidle v. Adirondack Power Light Corp., 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E. 654; Webb v. La. Light Power Co., 199 So. 451-3; Williams v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 267 Pa. 158, 110 A. 92; Williams v. Va. Elec. Power Co., 173 Va. 179, 3 S.E.2d 365; Yazoo M.V.R.R. Co. v. Skaggs, 181 Miss. 150, 179 So. 274; Arts. V, XIV, U.S. Constitution; Sec. 14 Constitution 1890. III.

In the Keep case, supra, we applied the rule where a boy 12 years old climbed a post to unloosen a rope which he had thrown and while attempting to unloosen it received a shock from high-voltage wires which caused severe injuries. In Troidle v. Adirondack P. L. Corp. 252 N.Y. 483, 488, 169 N.E. 654, 655, where it was held that an electric company was not liable for injury caused to plaintiff by his throwing a radio aerial wire across its high-voltage wires, the court said: "* * * We think that, in the situation shown, the defendant owed to the plaintiff no duty of insulating its wires, that he might be protected against the perils of an action, deliberately performed by him, which was so extraordinary and unforeseeable."

Alabama Utilities Co. v. Champion, 230 Ala. 263, 160 So. 346; Alabama Baptist Hospital Board v. Carter, 226 Ala. 109, 145 So. 443; Ensley Ry. Co. v. Chewning, 93 Ala. 24, 9 So. 458. No facts are averred in any count of the complaint in this case showing any duty on part of defendant to insulate its wires as located, or showing breach of any duty owed by defendant to plaintiff. Sheffield Co. v. Morton, 161 Ala. 153, 49 So. 772; Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Word, 200 Ala. 221, 75 So. 979; Alabama Power Co. v. Cooper, 229 Ala. 318, 156 So. 854; Troidle v. Adirondack Power Light Corporation, 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E. 654; Callaway v. Central Georgia Power Co., 43 Ga. App. 820, 160 S.E. 703; Kempft v. Spokane Inland Empire R. Co., 82 Wn. 263, 144 P. 77; L.R.A. 1915C, 405; Green v. West Penn Rys. Co., 246 Pa. 340, 92 A. 341; L.R.A. 1915C, 151. The maintenance of defendant's transmission line was not the proximate cause of the alleged injury to plaintiff's minor child.

We have reached the conclusion that it has not been properly determined by the Appellate Division that, as a matter of law, there was no proof of actionable negligence on its part. This is not such a situation as was presented in Adams v. Bullock ( 227 N.Y. 208, 209) and in Troidle v. Adirondack Power Light Corp. ( 252 N.Y. 483), in each of which cases the injured party brought a wire into contact with what was known to be a high voltage line, out of reach except for the act of making the contact. This case is more like Burrows v. Livingston-Niagara Power Co. ( 217 App. Div. 206; affd., 244 N.Y. 548), which states the applicable rule where the injured person is not a trespasser and points out the distinction to be observed between the several cases upon the subject.

In the case of Callaway v. Central Georgia Power Co., 43 Ga. App. 820, 160 S.E. 703, it was held that a child playing in the street, who threw a spool with a wire attached over a power line twenty feet above the street, could not recover for injuries received. A similar doctrine is announced in the cases of Trout v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 236 Pa. 506, 84 A. 967, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 713; Troidle v. Adirondack Power Light Corp., 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E. 654; Green v. West Penn. Rys. Co., 246 Pa. 340, 92 A. 341, L.R.A. 1915C, 151; and Stanley v. Smithfield, 211 N.C. 386, 190 S.E. 207. In the case of Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Compton, 39 Ariz. 491, 8 P.2d 249, it appeared that a boy climbed a high tension power line tower in a search for birds' nests, and was injured by coming in contact with the power wire. Among other charges of negligence, it was urged that the company was liable because it had failed to post danger or warning signs.