Dobson v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.
567 So. 2d 569 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In apportioning fault under a comparative negligence framework, a court must compare the unreasonableness of each party's conduct by weighing the magnitude of the risk against the burden or cost of taking precautions, considering each party's capacity and superior or inferior ability to avoid the harm.
Facts:
- Dwane L. Dobson, a recently self-employed tree trimmer, had limited formal training.
- After Dobson previously damaged a residential service line, a Louisiana Power and Light Company (LP & L) representative informed him the company would assist with such lines, but did not warn him about the different dangers of uninsulated high-voltage distribution lines.
- A homeowner, Mrs. Davidge, had repeatedly complained to LP & L about the hazards posed by its uninsulated 8,000-volt distribution line and a nearby pine tree, but LP & L refused her requests to remove the tree.
- Mrs. Davidge subsequently hired Dobson to remove the same pine tree located in her backyard, near the uninsulated power line.
- The uninsulated high-voltage distribution lines appeared visually similar to common, insulated service lines.
- On April 24, 1985, while working on the tree, Dobson was electrocuted when his homemade safety rope, which contained a metal wire core, came into contact with the uninsulated line.
Procedural Posture:
- Teri Dobson and her children (plaintiffs) filed a wrongful death action against Louisiana Power and Light Company (defendant) in a Louisiana trial court.
- The trial court found the decedent, Dwane Dobson, free of fault and held LP & L 100% liable, awarding the plaintiffs $1,034,054.50 in damages.
- LP & L, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed LP & L's negligence but reversed the finding on the decedent's fault, assigning him 70% of the fault and reducing the plaintiffs' award accordingly.
- The plaintiffs, as applicants, sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a comparative fault analysis, should the degree of fault be determined by comparing each party's conduct to the standard of a reasonable person, considering factors such as the cost of precautions and the party's capacity to avoid the harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, J.
Yes. Fault should be apportioned by comparing each party's deviation from a standard of reasonable conduct, which involves balancing the risk of harm against the cost of precautions. The court found Dobson negligent because a reasonable person in his occupation should have known of the general dangers of power lines, regardless of his actual knowledge. However, LP & L was also negligent for failing to inspect and maintain its right-of-way, insulate the line, or provide adequate warnings, especially knowing an inexperienced trimmer was working in the area. Applying the 'Hand formula' (risk-benefit analysis), the court determined that while the magnitude of risk created by both parties was extreme, the burden of precaution was significantly lower for LP & L. The power company had numerous inexpensive safety measures available and was in a superior position due to its expertise to prevent the harm. Dobson's ignorance ('inferior capacity') increased his burden of precaution. Because LP & L could have avoided the harm more easily and at a lower cost, it bears a greater percentage of the fault, which the court assigned at 60%.
Concurring - Lemmon, J.
Yes. Fault should be apportioned based on each party's deviation from the standard of care, but the factors outlined in Watson v. State Farm provide a better and less confusing framework than the Learned Hand formula. The Watson factors offer the necessary balancing and flexibility for quantifying fault and are more useful for juries than the more restrictive Hand test.
Dissenting - Cole, J.
No. The decedent's conduct was the sole cause of the accident. Dobson had been previously warned by an LP & L employee about the dangers of power lines and had been offered assistance, which he had successfully sought on a prior job. His failure to contact LP & L before this job constituted a gross breach of his duty of care. Furthermore, he violated several industry safety standards by working too close to the line, using a conductive safety rope, and descending the tree on the side nearest the wire. Given LP & L's prior warnings, the company could not have reasonably anticipated Dobson would act so recklessly, and its duty does not make it an insurer of safety.
Dissenting - Shortess, J. Pro Tem.
No. The Court of Appeal correctly assessed the comparative negligence. Even a novice tree trimmer should have known that using a steel-reinforced safety line near any electric line was extremely dangerous.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for formally adopting the 'Hand formula,' a classic risk-benefit analysis, as a tool for apportioning fault in comparative negligence cases, rather than just for determining the existence of negligence. By focusing on the relative costs of precaution and the parties' respective capacities to avoid harm, the court provided a more structured framework for comparing fault. This precedent shifts the analysis toward which party was in the better and more cost-effective position to prevent the injury, often placing a higher degree of responsibility on sophisticated commercial entities with superior knowledge, like utility companies.
Unlock the full brief for Dobson v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.