 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hoffman v. Union Electric Co.1/4/2005
rity assumes it is, that they would have immediately ceased their hesitation and rendered aid to the passengers upon hearing the status of the power line. On the contrary, Brad Randall (Randall), a firefighter and emergency medical technician that had accompanied an ambulance to the accident scene, testified that he would not have assisted the passengers in the vehicle until the line was removed, even if he was told that there was no current on the line.
Further, Fire Captain Maddick testified that none of the fire department vehicles was equipped with a "hot stick," which is what electrical utility personnel call the pole that Merrick retrieved from the fire truck. In fact, the pole that Merrick retrieved was referred to by fire personnel as a "pike pole," which they use to pull down sheetrock from ceilings in structure fires. Fire Captain Maddick testified that neither he nor any of his firefighters had any training in how to use a "pike pole" to move an electric line. When Fire Captain Maddick was questioned: "If someone from the utility had advised you that the line was dead -- that is, that there was no current on the line -- and instructed you to use a pike pole to remove the line from the vehicle --would you have used the pike pole to remove the line from the car," he replied, "Not -- I would have checked with my chief."
Ramer also testified that as a dispatcher in emergency situations similar to the one at issue he had never directed or authorized the firemen or police to use a "hot stick" to move a line. Ramer stated that he had never done so because they "probably in no way would be trained to do it," and he would not want to be responsible for "getting somebody hurt or killed or something." Ramer also explained that even when the circuit has locked open, it is possible for another line down the road to fall into it or for lightning to hit the line and energize it. Ramer stated that he was aware of a situation in which a line had been re-energized and "just burned a couple of guys and one of them happened to be a good friend of mine, so I know that happens."
The judicial determination of the existence of duty rests on sound public policy. Hoover's Dairy, Inc. v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 426, 431 (Mo.banc 1985). The majority opinion is creating a duty in this case unprecedented in Missouri law and with potentially dire consequences. I would hold that AmerenUE, who was not present at the scene of the automobile collision, caused through no fault of its own, with one of its power lines that has been negligently struck by the driver and trapping the vehicle's occupants, did not have a duty to advise by radio or telephone or some other remote means, the rescue personnel at the scene of that accident that the power line was not energized and thus safe for removal, when there were conditions unknown to AmerenUE that could render this advisement false, and thus place the lives of the rescue personnel in danger. The majority' s imposition of such a duty is clearly against public policy.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|