 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Crow v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.7/5/2005
that he made a few subsequent trips to the property while the painting work was in progress. "If the power lines were open and obvious," they reason, "Mayfield would have discovered them during this four- or five-hour inspection, or his subsequent visits to the complex." Although this argument has substantial intuitive appeal, as illustrated by the following extracts from Mayfield's deposition, it is conclusively refuted by the summary judgment record:
A: The power lines were actually at the very end of the complex.
Q: Did you go back to the very end?
A: No.
Q: Did you do that when the work started when you came and talked to Mr. Roop [Dority's supervisor] and explained the project to him?
A: I actually did not go to the back of that building.
Q: At any time before Mr. Dority's accident, did you ever see the power lines?
A: No.
Q: Was there any reason for you not to have seen them other than you just didn't go back in that area?
A: I didn't go back in that area.
Q: There wasn't anything concealing them from view, was there?
A: No.
Q: They were out in the open?
A: That's correct.
Q: If you were in that area, they were obvious?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have any difficulty seeing the power lines?
A: Not when you get back there.
Q: As far as you know, as far as you could tell, the power lines were out in the open and they were obvious? All you had to do was look? Is that right?
A: Yeah. If you look, you can see them.
Q: They weren't in the middle of the trees or anything like that?
A: No.
Q: They weren't hidden in any way?
A: No.
Q: There was nothing to obscure a human being's view of the power lines if you were there at the back of the building?
A: No.
Q: Nobody else was on the ladder on Building 9?
A: Not in the vicinity of the power line.
Q: Nobody carried a ladder to Building 9?
A: Not in the vicinity of the line. The line was at the very end of the building, and he [Dority] was the only one who worked around that end of the building.
Q: During your subsequent visits after the bidding process at the Ethans complex, what did you go there for? Inspection - supervision? Inspection? Quality control?
A: Yes.
Q: Your testimony is you never saw any overhead power lines prior to -
A: The accident.
Q: I'll just call it the incident at issue. Okay?
A: That's correct.
Q: And you also told us earlier that you didn't see the lines before the accident occurred, but I think that's due to the fact that you just never went back to the area of the complex. Am I right about that?
A: That's correct.
Q: Was there any reason that you didn't see the lines other than you just didn't happen to go back there in bidding the job ?
A: No. That's it.
While this testimony clearly indicates that Mayfield's pre- and post-bid inspections of the property were less than completely thorough and would support a claim that he negligently inspected Dority's workplace for the existence of potential safety hazards before directing him to begin working there, it is insufficient to support even an inference that the presence of the overhead power lines was not open and obvious to anyone, who, like Dority before and at the time of the accident and Mayfield afterward, was located in close prox
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|