Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co.
239 N.W.2d 190, 307 Minn. 26, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1396 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a comparative negligence case involving a dangerous instrumentality, the jury must be instructed to give special consideration to the disparity in risk and knowledge between the party maintaining the instrumentality (who is held to a high degree of care) and the ordinary person encountering it (who is held to a standard of ordinary care) when apportioning causal negligence.
Facts:
- In 1955, Northern States Power Company (NSP) installed several power lines at the rear of the Ferguson property, including an uninsulated 8,000-volt transmission line that encroached several feet onto the lot.
- In 1964, David L. Ferguson planted several poplar trees near the power lines.
- By the spring of 1971, one of the poplar trees had grown to be 35 to 40 feet tall and was in close proximity to the high-voltage line.
- David Ferguson and his son, Scott Ferguson, decided to trim the tree themselves to save money.
- Before Scott climbed a ladder to trim the tree, his father advised him about the wires, correctly identifying the lower wires as household service lines but incorrectly guessing the top wire was a harmless support wire.
- The Fergusons were unaware that the top wire was an uninsulated, 8,000-volt transmission line.
- While Scott Ferguson was trimming the tree, a falling branch he had cut contacted the high-voltage line, causing him to suffer a severe electrical shock and sustain serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott Ferguson and David L. Ferguson sued Northern States Power Company (NSP) in Hennepin County District Court (trial court) to recover damages for Scott's injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a special verdict finding all parties causally negligent.
- The jury apportioned 70% of the fault to Scott Ferguson and 30% to NSP for Scott's injuries, and 75% of the fault to David Ferguson and 25% to NSP for the consequential damages.
- Because the jury found each plaintiff's negligence to be greater than 50%, the trial court ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant, NSP.
- The Fergusons filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The Fergusons, as appellants, appealed the denial of their post-trial motion to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
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 negligence action, must a jury, when apportioning fault, be instructed to consider the disparity in the standards of care and the vast difference in knowledge of the risk between a utility company transmitting high-voltage electricity and an ordinary person injured by it?
Opinions:
Majority - Yetka, Justice
Yes. In a case involving a dangerous instrumentality and a great disparity in risks, a jury must be instructed to give special consideration to this disparity to fairly apportion causal negligence. The court reasoned that transmitting high-voltage electricity is a highly dangerous activity, subjecting the utility company (NSP) to a 'high degree of care' due to its specialized knowledge of the extraordinary risk. In contrast, an ordinary person like Scott Ferguson is held only to a standard of 'ordinary care' and cannot be expected to know of or anticipate the lethal danger of an uninsulated high-voltage line absent a specific warning. Given this disparity, the jury's apportionment of more than 50% fault to the plaintiffs was unreasonable. Furthermore, the court ordered a new trial based on several procedural errors: (1) the special verdict form improperly separated the apportionment of negligence for each plaintiff instead of asking for a single apportionment of 100% of the fault among all causally negligent parties; and (2) jurors who dissented from the finding that NSP was causally negligent were improperly allowed to participate in apportioning NSP's negligence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the doctrine of comparative negligence in cases involving dangerous instrumentalities and parties with disparate knowledge. By requiring juries to consider the different standards of care and the defendant's superior knowledge of the risk, the court moves beyond a simple comparison of negligent acts. This precedent effectively raises the bar for defendants like utility companies to prove a plaintiff's negligence was greater than their own, making it more difficult for them to escape liability. The case also establishes important procedural rules in Minnesota for how juries must apportion fault among multiple parties and clarifies that jurors who dissent on a party's initial negligence finding are disqualified from the subsequent apportionment question.
Unlock the full brief for Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co.