(348)


Ch.  9]  DBPT3CTS  IN  CONSTRUCTION,  ETC.  §  119

it  ia  held  to  the  exercise  of  a  high  degree  of  care.  This
duty  is  differently  expressed  in  different  cases.  It  is  held
that  the  company  must  use  the  highest  degree  of  care,^  and
that,  where  a  highly  dangerous  force  is  used,  corresponding-
ly great  care  must  be  used.^  In  other  cases  the  degree  of
care  necessary  has  been  held  to  be  reasonable  care  under  all
the  circumstances;*  and  in  Calumet  Elec.  St.  Ey.  Co.  v.
Grosse'  it  was  held  that,  where  an  electric  wire  is  so  ar-
ranged that  it  will  not  injure  anybody  in  the  exercise  of
his  rights  upon  the  highway,  the  company  is  under  no  duty
to  have  absolutely  protected  the  insulation,  so  that  no  person,
however  extraordinary  his  duties  may  be,  will  be  injured
by  it.
An  electric  street  railway  must  adopt  all  usual  methods
to  prevent  contact  between  its  wires  and  the  wires  of  a  tele-
phone company  on  the  same  highway;*  and  the  fact  that  a
street  car  company  has  authority  to  erect  wires,  and  the
fact  that  it  erects  them  in  a  proper  manner,  will  not  excuse
the  company  when  it  knowingly  permits  a  telephone  wire
to  be  suspended  over  its  own  in  such  a  manner  that  it  is

2  Thomas'  Adm'r  v.  Maysville  Gas  Co.,  21  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1690;
Macon  V.  Paducah  St.  Ry.  Co.,  23  Ky.  Law  Rep.  46;  Lexington  R.
Co.  V.  Pain's  Adm'r,  24  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1443;  Memphis  St.  Ry.  Co.
V.  Kartright  (Tenn.)  75  S.  W.  719.
sNeal  V.  Wilmington  &  N.  C.  Elec.  Ry.  Co.,  3  Pen.  (Del.)  467;
Godfrey  v.  Streator  Ry.  Co.,  56  111.  App.  378.
