The grounds of demurrer are:
“(a) It appears from the face of the complaint that the alleged negligence of the defendant was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s intestate’s injury.
“(b) And that it is not alleged in the complaint that the defendant has violated any contractual duty that it owed to the plaintiff’s intestate.
“(c) That the damages alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint are too remote to sustain an action against the defendant.”
We think that the points intended to be presented by the learned counsel for the defendant cannot well be raised by demurrer to this complaint. The allegations are comprehensive and pointed. Upon demurrer those allegations of fact must be accepted as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Smith v. Hartsell, 150 N. C., 71. The complaint charges that the defendant knowingly and willfully and unlawfully cut the telephone line of a pnblic service company without notice; that this line connected with Drs. Pennington and Jones whom he had engaged to attend his wife in childbirth. That as soon as his wife was taken down he attempted to communicate with the doctors by this public-service phone, and could not do so because it had been wrongfully cut by the defendant without notice to any one. That there was no other physician available who could be obtained. Plaintiff further specifically alleges that these physicians could and *570would have come at bis call but by reason of tbe unlawful cutting of tbe wires of tbe telephone company, they were unable to reach tbe plaintiffs wife in time to save her life. Plaintiff further alleges that if tbe line bad not been cut, a physician could have been reached in time to have arrived at tbe home of tbe plaintiff to save tbe life of bis wife. Tbe cutting of telephone wires is made a misdemeanor punishable with fine or imprisonment by sec. 3845 of tbe Revisal. Upon tbe facts stated in this complaint tbe defendant and its agents are guilty of a misdemeanor. Tbe plaintiff alleges that this unlawful act was tbe cause which resulted in bis wife’s death, and that it was tbe proximate cause of tbe same.
It is not necessary that tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant should have bad any contractual relations. Upon the allegations of tbe complaint tbe defendant is guilty of a tort, and as such is liable for any injuries naturally following and flowing from tbe wrongful act.
In Drum v. Miller, 135 N. C., 214, it is said: “It may be stated as a general rule that when one does an illegal or mischievous act which is likely to prove injurious to another . . . be is answerable in some form of action for all of tbe consequences which may directly and naturally result from bis conduct. It is not necessary that be should actually intend to do tbe particular injury, which follows, nor indeed any injury at all, because tbe law in such cases will presume that be intended to do that which is tbe natural result of bis conduct.”
It is undeniable if tbe allegations of tbe complaint are true, that tbe failure of tbe physicians to arrive in time to minister to tbe wife during childbirth, was tbe direct result of tbe unlawful act of tbe defendant. It is alleged in tbe complaint that if a physician bad arrived in time be could have saved her life. This may be very bard to prove, but it may be that she died from some cause that a physician could have remedied bad be been present. We are not called on to pass on this question, for it is distinctly alleged in tbe complaint that tbe condition of tbe wife was such that a physician could in all probability have saved her life. This allegation must be taken to be true upon demurrer. Tbe position that tbe damages are too remote to sustain an! action cannot be maintained. If the jury should find under proper evidence that tbe failure of tbe physician to arrive in time was caused by tbe wrongful act of tbe defendant in cutting tbe telephone wires, that would establish tbe-tort. If tbe jury should further find upon competent and sufficient evidence that tbe circumstances of tbe childbirth and tbe conditions were such that bad tbe physician been present, be could have administered remedies which in all reasonable probability, judging by experience, would have saved tbe life of tbe wife, then tbe unlawful act of tbe defendant would be tbe proximate cause of her death. This would *571establish a cause of action. The damages would be the value of the life of the wife to be estimated by the jury in accordance with the numerous decisions of this Court.
We think the demurrer should have been overruled, and the defendant allowed to answer.