Clinton v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
1976 Ill. App. LEXIS 2125, 36 Ill. App. 3d 1064, 344 N.E.2d 509 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An electricity supplier's legal duty to insulate or modify the placement of high-voltage wires on private property is limited by the reasonable foreseeability of contact, considering the likelihood of injury, the burden of guarding against it, and public policy, and there must be a proven causal connection between any alleged negligence and the injury.
Facts:
- On March 3, 1959, James Clinton, the deceased’s father, employed Paul Hassel, d/b/a Spark Electric, to install poles and electric lines for electric service to the Clintons’ new home.
- Hassel installed three wooden poles on the Clintons’ property and strung bare copper wire from pole to pole, placing a transformer received from Commonwealth Edison Company (Edison) on the pole closest to the house, as indicated on Edison's diagram.
- Edison connected wires from its transmission line to the first pole on the Clintons’ property; the primary wire across the poles carried 7200 volts, and the secondary wire from the transformer carried 220 volts.
- The 7200-volt wire was elevated 22.5 to 25 feet above the ground on the Clintons’ private property and was clearly visible and unobstructed.
- On April 27, 1968, Robert Clinton, 15 years old, was discovered electrocuted in the yard of his family’s residence, and a 25-foot aluminum pole, part of a dismantled CB radio antenna, was found near his body with burn marks.
- The primary 7200-volt wire spanning the poles on the Clintons’ property also had burn marks where it had been contacted by the aluminum pole.
- Paul Hassel claimed he informed James Clinton about the uninsulated 7200-volt wire, which James Clinton denied, although the installation bill indicated the 7200-volt line.
- Plaintiff’s expert testified that adequate insulation for a 7200-volt line was available in 1959, but that even insulated wire would be considered dangerous, and that the Illinois Commerce Commission regulations required wires to be 18 feet above private property but did not require insulation.
Procedural Posture:
- Theresa Clinton, as administrator of Robert Clinton's estate, filed a complaint in the trial court (court of first instance) charging negligence against Commonwealth Edison Company and Paul Hassel, d/b/a Spark Electric.
- At the close of all the evidence, the trial court granted the defendants’ motions for directed verdicts.
- Plaintiff (Theresa Clinton) appealed the directed verdicts to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are an electricity company and its installer negligent for failing to insulate high-voltage wires or position a transformer differently on private property when contact with the wires by a 15-year-old boy using an antenna pole is not reasonably foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. JUSTICE BURKE
No, an electricity company and its installer are not negligent for failing to insulate high-voltage wires or position a transformer differently on private property when contact with the wires by a 15-year-old boy using an antenna pole is not reasonably foreseeable. While electricity is an inherently dangerous force requiring a high degree of care, this duty does not necessitate the insulation of all electrical wires; rather, the duty to insulate arises only when conditions and circumstances indicate that persons might come into reasonable proximity to the wire, making contact reasonably foreseeable. In this case, the 7200-volt line was elevated 22.5 to 25 feet, clearly visible, unobstructed, and located on private property, and there was no evidence that either defendant had knowledge of circumstances suggesting a 15-year-old boy would contact such a wire. The court distinguished this case from others where foreseeability of contact was established due to worker presence or public access. Furthermore, the court considered the factors for determining legal duty, including the likelihood of injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against it, and public policy, concluding that requiring insulation in these circumstances would impose an excessive burden on the electrical industry and the public given the minimal foreseeable risk. Regarding the alternative placement of the transformer to reduce voltage, the court found no duty to do so for the same reasons of unforeseeability. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to prove proximate cause, as her own expert testified that a lower voltage line (240 volts) could still cause electrocution, and no evidence demonstrated that Robert Clinton’s death would have been prevented if a lower voltage line had been in place.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of a utility company's duty of care regarding high-voltage lines on private property, emphasizing the critical role of reasonable foreseeability. It establishes that while electricity is inherently dangerous, the duty to insulate or modify infrastructure is not absolute but is balanced against the specific circumstances, the burden of prevention, and public policy considerations. The ruling reinforces that compliance with regulatory standards (like wire height) serves as evidence of due care, and underscores the necessity of proving a direct causal link between alleged negligence and injury, preventing recovery based on mere possibility. Future cases will likely cite this decision when evaluating negligence claims against utilities, particularly in scenarios involving unforeseen interactions with electrical infrastructure on private land.
