## Facts

- Daniel R. Kemp, a minor, operated a gasoline-powered model airplane controlled by two 50-foot metal wires held in his hand.
- One control wire contacted an uninsulated electric transmission line owned and operated by Wisconsin Electric Power Company, causing severe electrical burns.
- The line transmitted 138,000 volts and was strung with a vertical clearance of at least 29 feet at the point of contact.
- The transmission line was supported by towers hundreds of feet apart, with the nearest towers approximately 314 feet and 259 feet from the contact point.
- A “Warning of High Voltage” sign was posted on the tower pilings; Daniel had previously seen it and knew the lines carried higher voltage than household wiring.
- The utility’s installation complied with the Wisconsin electrical code.
- Daniel (through a guardian) sued for personal injuries; his father sued for derivative losses (medical bills and lost services).

## Issues

1. Whether the utility could be found negligent for maintaining an uninsulated, code-compliant 138-kV transmission line with at least 29 feet of clearance in an area where children played, based on the foreseeability of contact via 50-foot metal control wires from a model airplane.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper because no genuine issue of material fact existed and the negligence question could be decided as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
- The court held the material facts were undisputed and presented no triable factual issue.
- The court concluded that the accident mechanism was so extraordinary that a reasonable utility would not be required to anticipate it; therefore, the plaintiffs lacked evidence supporting negligence.

## Legal Principles

- An electric utility must exercise a high degree of care in constructing and maintaining high-voltage lines where contact by people may reasonably be anticipated, but it is not an insurer against all injuries.
- Negligence duty in this context turns on whether the type of harm is reasonably foreseeable; highly unusual or extraordinary events may fall outside the scope of required precautions.
- Compliance with the applicable electrical code is strong evidence of due care (though not necessarily conclusive), particularly where injury would occur only through an exceptional chain of events.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no substantial issue of fact to be tried and, on the undisputed facts, liability cannot be established as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

Because the line was code-compliant and suspended at least 29 feet above the ground, and because injury occurred only through an exceptional event—50-foot metal model-airplane control wires reaching a high-voltage line—the court held the risk was not reasonably foreseeable and affirmed summary judgment for the utility.


Kemp v. Wis. Elec. Power Co., 172 N.W.2d 161 (Wis. 1969)