 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nevada Power Co. v. Haggerty12/13/1999
(1931). In Douglass, this court held that a statute which required mine shafts to be equipped with a "safety cage, safety crosshead or safety skip" required a safety cage and either a safety crosshead or safety skip, rather than reading the statute as providing three alternatives, because the statute was enacted to promote the safety of miners as they traveled up and down mine shafts. Id. at 191-92, 295 P. at 448 (quoting Section 10480, N.C.L as amended (1913 Nev. Stat., ch. 267, ยง1, at 422-23)).
More recently, this court interpreted a real estate licensing statute in Brill v. State Real Estate Division, 95 Nev. 917, 604 P.2d 113 (1979). In Brill, the issue was whether a twenty-five dollar fee charged by the defendant for access to an index of available homes for sale and rent was an "advance fee," thus mandating that the defendant obtain a real estate license. This court determined that the fee was in fact an "advance fee," because the purpose of the real estate license statute was to protect the public from unqualified persons. Id. at 919-20, 604 P.2d at 114.
A few years later, this court decided Colello v. Administrator, Real Estate Div., 100 Nev. 344, 683 P.2d 15 (1984). In Colello, the appellants received a judgment against a real estate licensee on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation and embezzlement. After appellants unsuccessfully attempted to collect from the licensee, they obtained $10,000.00 from the Real Estate Education, Research and Recovery Fund ("Fund") pursuant to Nevada law. This court held that appellants were only required to assign $10,000.00 of their judgment to the Fund despite statutory language that "the judgment creditor shall assign all his right, title and interest in the judgment" because the statute was intended to protect judgment creditors without requiring them to forsake their entire judgment to collect a portion. Id. at 346 n.2 and 347-48, 683 P.2d at 16 n.2 and 16-17 (emphasis added) (NRS 645.8491 quoted in footnote 2).
I believe that Nevada's overhead power line statutes should be liberally construed as were the statutes in the noted cases. I believe a liberal construction is all the more compelling when the protective purpose of a statute involves physical safety. As previously stated, the purpose of the statutes in question here is to promote worker safety. The legislature determined it could best do so if it provided an incentive for an employer to report work conducted in proximity to power lines. Neither the statute nor the legislative history distinguishes between outdoor and indoor power lines. The danger posed to an employee is certainly not reduced if the power line is located indoors, as demonstrated by what happened to Haggerty. I believe that the purpose of the overhead power line statutes would be best accomplished if the statutes were interpreted to apply to all exposed power lines, without regard to whether they are located outside or inside, on a wooden pole or in a basement.
Finally, the majority bases its decision, in part, on the concern that a ruling for Nevada Power would mean that Nevada Power might charge repeated supervisory fees to the Horseshoe Club whenever an employee works near the electrical room. Nothing exists in the record to support this assertion. This court "has no power to look outside of the record of a case." Carson Ready Mix v. First Nat'l Bank, 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276, 277 (1981) (quoting Alderson v. Gilmore, 13 Nev. 84, 85 (1878)).
For all of the above reasons, I would reverse the order of the district court and remand this matter for trial.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|