Defendant disconnected A. J. Cox’ electrical service following a storm on tbe afternoon of 10 July, 1937, informed him that bis bouse wiring system needed repair, suggested that be employ an electrician to place it in proper condition, and promised to reconnect tbe service upon receipt of notice that tbe repairs bad been made. Tbe customer asked if be could have lights that night. No further communication was bad between tbe power company and its customer until tbe afternoon of 17 July, 1937, when tbe company was informed that its customer’s grandchild bad been electrocuted while under tbe bouse.
A high degree of foresight is required of tbe defendant because of the-character and behavior of electricity which it generates and sells. Shaw v. Public-Service Corp., 168 N. C., 611, 84 S. E., 1010. Tbe defendant’s knowledge of its service is supposedly superior to that of its customer’s. It is not unreasonable, therefore, in view of tbe dangerous character of tbe product, to require the “utmost diligence and foresight, in the construction, maintenance, and inspection of its plant, wires, and appliances, consistent with the practical operation of the business.” Turner v. Power Co., 167 N. C., 630, 83 S. E., 744. The care required must be commensurate with the dangers incident to the business. And so the law is written. Haynes v. Gas Co., 114 N. C., 203, 19 S. E., 344.
The negligence of Baxter Elliott was not such as to insulate the negligence of the defendant as a matter of law. Quinn v. R. R., 213 N. C., 48, 195 S. E., 85. The defendant’s liability is predicated upon its failure to inspect its wires within a reasonable time. It knew that Cox was a regular user of its service. This had been interrupted, the defendant called, and with full knowledge of the facts, including the customer’s desire to have the service restored immediately, the matter was allowed to go for seven days without further inquiry or attention on the part of the defendant. Under the circumstances, we think the question of due care was for the jury. What is due care is to be determined by the exigencies of the occasion. Diamond v. Service Stores, 211 N. C., 632, 191 S. E., 358.
It is true, the customer was to notify the defendant when the repairs to the house wiring system had been made, so that the service could be reconnected by the defendant, but this was not done. The defendant must have known, or in the exercise of a high degree of care should have known, according to the jury’s finding, that the service had been restored in some way by the electrician called by the customer. With knowledge of this fact, actual or implied, the duty of inspection immediately devolved upon the defendant, as such restoration was contrary to its rules.
The conclusion results that the verdict and judgment should be upheld.
No error.