In Mark v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 170, the light from a street lamp post was so bright it disturbed the sleep of nearby residents, and they complained to the utility company, PG&E. Notwithstanding efforts by PG&E to reduce the glare, the light continued to cause problems. Eventually, the residents resorted to self-help and unscrewed the light bulb. PG&E sent an employee who screwed the bulb back in place. Each time this was done, the residents unscrewed the bulb. Thus, PG&E knew that someone was tampering with the light. On one occasion, a resident attempted to remove the bulb, touched an uninsulated wire, and was electrocuted. In a suit for wrongful death, the trial court granted a nonsuit for PG&E. The Supreme Court reversed. The court stated that "harm to decedent was certainly foreseeable, given PG&E's knowledge of tampering with high voltage wiring, and a clear causal relationship existed between the accident and PG&E's asserted negligence in failing to warn of or repair the hazard. Although PG&E may have been 'morally' without blame, imposition of liability would enhance the policy of preventing future accidents. Finally, imposition of liability does not seem unduly burdensome to PG&E considering the probable availability of insurance covering accidents of this nature which are not likely to recur with great frequency." ( Id. at p. 178, fn. 5.)