 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McFann v. Southwestern Power Electric Co.12/14/2005
Before PEATROSS, DREW and MOORE, JJ.
Carolyn McFann appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing a personal injury claim filed on behalf of her 14-year-old son, Otis, against Southwestern Electric and Power Company ("SWEPCO"). McFann alleged that Otis was electrically shocked and sustained serious injuries by SWEPCO's negligent failure to properly secure a disconnected, live electrical service line, which Otis cut into, using pruning shears. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that SWEPCO had not breached any duty to plaintiff, where it appeared that Otis intentionally cut into the line and had failed to prove the personal injuries allegedly caused by the incident, except perhaps a minor superficial flash burn to the side of Otis's face. We affirm.
Facts
A storm passing through the Shreveport area on September 16, 2002 had caused a large tree limb to fall on the electrical service line to the McFann house, pulling the weatherhead and service meter off of the house and apparently sending sparks flying. The fire department and SWEPCO were contacted.
A SWEPCO employee, James Lindsey, made the service call and arrived at the home to find the weatherhead and meter on the ground. He cut the two 120-volt insulated lines and the uninsulated neutral wire from the weatherhead. He taped the exposed ends of the wires. Lindsey rolled up the line into a 3-feet diameter circle and affixed it to the utility pole with tape. The bottom of the circle of wires was three or four feet off the ground and located on the side of the pole opposite the tree limb.
Lindsey told Ms. McFann that she would need to hire an electrician to repair the connection to the house and restore electricity to the house. Ms. McFann testified that Lindsey told her that the wires were dead. Lindsey denied ever making such a statement.
Later that day, Ms. McFann's son, Otis, began cutting branches from the downed tree limb with a pair of rubber-handled pruning shears. Otis testified that he did not see the wires due to the leaves and branches from the fallen limb when the shears cut into the wire. The shears created an arc between the two 120-volt lines and flashed. Much of the dispute in this case is whether Otis actually received an electrical shock or simply a minor skin burn from the heat of the flash.
James Lindsey testified that after the accident he was told by his supervisor, Jimmy Huelett, that in the future he should tape the wires twelve to fifteen feet above the ground. Lindsey also testified that he had been shocked several times during the eleven years he has worked as a electrical service technician by both 120 and 240 volts of electricity. He stated that being shocked by 120 or 240 volts would not make an entry or exit wound because it was far too little voltage. Lindsey testified that he has seen individuals who had entry and exit wounds from being shocked from very high voltages of electricity. When this occurs, he said, the entry wound occurs at the point of entry of the electricity.
The defendant introduced photographs taken at the scene of the incident into the trial record. The photographs show the location of the pruning shears, which remained stuck to the wire where Otis had started to cut them, and the location of the foliage and branches nearby. The pruning shears had rubber grips. Lindsey testified that the rubber grips on the shears provided sufficient insulation to prevent Otis from being shocked. Additionally, Otis's rubber (tennis) shoes should have prevented him from being shocked because the shoes would insulate the person from the ground.
Lindsey explained that electricity always seeks the ground by
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|