 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roberson v. Louisville Gas and Electric Co.2/11/2005
e additional or alternate precautions to render the area safe and lighted. Possibly in reliance on the streetlight, Roberson's parents provided no additional precautionary measures for the safe passage of their son across the highway. See, also, David v. Broadway Maintenance Corporation, 451 F.Supp. 877 (E.D.Pa.1978), which held a utility company liable for injuries sustained by a pedestrian due to negligent maintenance of a streetlight.
We hold that LG&E owed a duty to pedestrians, including Shytone Roberson, for the faulty condition of the street light resulting from its failure to maintain the light. There is evidence in the record that the light at issue had been inoperable for more than two months. Whether LG&E breached its duty of care to Shytone Roberson and whether that breach was the cause of his injuries are matters which must be properly decided by a jury on remand.
The judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court is vacated, and this matter is remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GUIDUGLI, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT AND FILES SEPARATE OPINION.
SCHRODER, JUDGE, DISSENTS.
GUIDUGLI, JUDGE, CONCURRING.
I concur in result only for the following reason. I do not agree with the majority that the facts in Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 2003), "are identical in all relevant aspects to those in the case before us." In fact, I believe the facts differ significantly. But I do believe that the Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) does have a contractual duty to maintain the light in question. As the majority points out, streetlights are not installed for aesthetic reasons. Someone or some entity decided that the streetlight was necessary for a specific reason -- normally for safety. The Jefferson County Fiscal Court and ultimately the taxpayer pay LG&E a monthly fee for each streetlight. If the light is not functioning, the safety provided by the light is lost and the taxpayer is paying for a service not being provided. If LG&E agrees to install a streetlight and to collect a monthly fee, then it has a duty to insure the light is working and the purpose for its installation is fulfilled. As such, I concur with the majority in that I believe the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based upon its finding that LG&E had no duty to maintain the streetlight in question or for that matter, any streetlight it had installed. However, I differ from the majority in that I also believe that the facts herein are significantly different than those of the Florida case relied on by the majority. While I would reverse and remand for further proceedings, I would not preclude summary judgment being reconsidered based upon the specific facts of this case. LG&E does owe a duty to maintain streetlights but may not owe a duty to Shytone Roberson based upon his actions of crossing a five lane street approximately 112 yards from what should have been a lit crosswalk.
|