 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McFann v. Southwestern Power Electric Co.12/14/2005
traveling through something connected to the ground that is not insulated in order to release its power. A lone, 120-volt line is known as "phase to ground," and if a person comes into contact with an exposed (uninsulated) line, it would attempt to send the voltage through the person to find the ground to discharge its "load," unless the person is insulated by rubber gloves, rubber grips, or shoes. On the other hand, Lindsey said, when two 120-volt lines are combined, as in this case, it creates a 240-volt load, and is called "phase to phase." If these two lines are somehow connected by something that conducts electricity, they will attempt to discharge their load into each other (phase to phase), causing intense heat and a flash.
Lindsey testified that if a person cuts into the two 120-volt wires with the pruning shears, he or she will likely not be electrically shocked because the electricity from each wire will travel to the other wire (phase to phase), causing an arc and a fire. He said any damage to a person would not be from voltage, but a person could get burned (from the heat of the flash) if they were close enough to it.
Jimmy Huelett testified that he told Lindsey after the accident that he should have taped the wire to the utility pole 12 to 15 feet above the ground. He said this is the general practice, and he wrote Lindsey up for improper job performance. The only reason why wires are sometimes left within reach of a person on the ground, he said, is to enable the electrical repair man brought in to reconnect the lines to the house to do so without having to call a SWEPCO employee back out to bring the line down. Huelett testified that it would be possible [but not likely] that a person could receive some damage from cutting into a service line with pruning shears even while wearing tennis shoes. However, on cross-examination, he clarified that he did not think that a person would be shocked in that situation because the electricity could not travel through the body to the ground. It would stay at the wires, which, he said, is what causes the flash.
Huelett also testified that he visited the McFann residence after the accident. He said Otis McFann was sitting on the porch at the house. Otis told him that he did not receive a shock, but that it felt like he received a sunburn on the side of his face. Huelett said it was not unusual for a flash from the wires to cause that type of minor burn. Huelett said he suggested to Ms. McFann that she may want to get Otis examined by a doctor to be safe. He said Otis did not complain of any injury to his foot. The only injury Huelett saw was some redness on the right side of Otis' face. He asked Ms. McFann to get in touch with him if there was anything wrong. Huelett never heard from her again.
Huelett stated that in his experience he had never seen entry or exit wounds caused by someone being shocked by 120 or 240 volts. He said he personally was shocked once by 480 volts, but he did not receive any entry or exit wounds.
He testified that when he arrived, the shears were still attached to the wires. He also testified that SWEPCO has a frequent problem with people cutting their wires and selling them for scrap.
Both Huelett and Lindsey testified that the service wire came from a transformer on the utility pole and within the transformer there is a safety fuse. They stated that if a person caused a ground fault (phase to ground), that is, if the person was electrically shocked, it should have blown the fuse in the transformer. The transformer fuse in this case was not blown; nor did it blow, moreover, when the tree limb tore the line down from the house.
Carolyn McFann testifie
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.
|
|