Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. Burrows
435 A.2d 716, 1981 Del. LEXIS 360 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An electric utility company, in distributing a dangerous agency like electricity, owes a very high degree of care to the public, which includes a duty to protect against reasonably foreseeable dangers and events, not merely those that are 'probable' to occur.
Facts:
- On March 19, 1972, Robert Burrows was helping his neighbors, Katherine and Richard Hawkins, erect a television antenna on the roof of their rented house.
- Burrows was standing on the ground holding the antenna's base while its upper end touched Delmarva Power & Light Company’s uninsulated high voltage wires.
- One of Delmarva's wires ran over the eave of the Hawkins' house, and the pole supporting the wires was approximately two feet from the house.
- Richard Hawkins testified that one could actually grab the wires while standing on the rooftop, and that the wires would not be visible from Burrows’ apparent location on the ground.
- Burrows received a massive electrical shock, resulting in brain damage, when the antenna contacted the wires.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Burrows sued Delmarva Power & Light Company in Superior Court (trial court) for negligence.
- A Superior Court jury awarded Burrows $253,869.75.
- Delmarva Power & Light Company, the defendant, appealed the judgment to the Delaware Supreme Court, asserting error in the trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in its jury instructions regarding an electric utility company's duty of care by emphasizing protection against "reasonably foreseeable" events over "probable" events, by allegedly overstating the duty to insulate or warn, or by improperly addressing compliance with safety codes and contributory negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Quillen, Justice
No, the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding an electric utility company's duty of care, as the instructions correctly emphasized a standard of reasonable foreseeability, properly balanced the scope of the duty to protect and warn, and did not commit reversible error regarding safety code compliance or contributory negligence. The Court clarified that Delaware law measures duties owed in terms of reasonableness, requiring protection against 'reasonably foreseeable' events. It found that the trial judge's initial charge correctly stated this duty, even when including protection against the negligence of others or accidents beyond control, because these were expressly limited by 'reasonably foreseeable and known' situations. The instruction requiring 'everything that gives reasonable promise of preserving life... regardless of difficulty or expense' (derived from prior cases) was interpreted as not a limitless duty, but one tempered by 'reasonable promise' and consistent with negligence standards when read in context. The Court explicitly rejected the argument that the duty extended only to events 'probable' to occur, stating that 'reasonably foreseeable' is the proper standard and that 'probable to happen' language found in a previous case was a 'slight departure from true negligence theory.' It affirmed that the duty to insulate or warn was also correctly tied to reasonable foreseeability, not an absolute duty regardless of wire location. The Court found no reversible error in the instruction concerning compliance with the National Electric Safety Code, as it implicitly stated that compliance was 'some evidence of due care.' Furthermore, the trial court's instructions on contributory negligence were deemed adequate, clearly stating that Burrows could not recover if found contributorily negligent. Lastly, the Court upheld the reasonableness of the economist's calculations for lost earnings and declined to revisit established Delaware law regarding the non-consideration of taxation on future earnings, given Delmarva's failure to introduce specific evidence on the matter at trial.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the 'reasonable foreseeability' standard as the cornerstone of negligence law in Delaware, particularly for entities handling inherently dangerous instrumentalities like electricity. It provides crucial guidance on how to interpret seemingly broad language in jury instructions, ensuring that a 'very high degree of care' for electric companies is understood as stringent but not absolute, consistently tied to what is reasonably anticipated. The decision clarifies the distinction between 'foreseeable' and 'probable,' effectively expanding the scope of situations for which a utility might be liable, promoting greater public safety. This ruling will likely influence future cases involving hazardous activities by holding defendants to a robust standard of proactive risk management.
