Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co.
418 So. 2d 493 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The transmission of electricity over high-voltage power lines is not an ultrahazardous activity that imposes absolute liability. An electric utility's liability for injuries resulting from contact with its lines is determined under a negligence standard, analyzing the reasonableness of the utility's conduct under the specific circumstances.
Facts:
- Keith Kent, an 18-year-old employee of Barber Brothers Contracting Company, was working on a highway widening project.
- The project required working directly underneath uninsulated high-voltage distribution lines owned by Gulf States Utilities Company, which were approximately 25 feet above the ground.
- Kent and a co-worker were using a metal rake with a 30-foot extended aluminum handle to create antihydroplaning grooves in freshly poured concrete.
- Because a piece of machinery was unavailable, Kent and his co-worker adopted a 'flip-flop' method to pass the long rake across the concrete slab, which involved raising the handle high into the air.
- Kent was aware of the overhead power lines, as a co-worker had pointed them out and warned him just moments before the accident.
- While standing near the wires and executing the 'flip-flop' maneuver, Kent raised the 30-foot aluminum handle and made contact with a high-voltage line, resulting in his severe electrocution.
Procedural Posture:
- Milton Kent, Jr., on behalf of his son Keith Kent, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Gulf States Utilities Company and the State of Louisiana Department of Highways in a state trial court.
- The trial court dismissed the Department of Highways, ruling that workmen's compensation was the exclusive remedy against the employer.
- Kent then amended his suit to add the Department's project engineer and inspector, as well as his employer's two executive officers, as individual defendants.
- During the trial, the employer's executive officers reached a settlement with Kent.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Kent against Gulf States and the settling officers, and the trial court entered a judgment against Gulf States for its one-third share.
- Kent appealed to the intermediate court of appeal, challenging the dismissal of the state employees and the reduction of the judgment. Gulf States also appealed, asserting defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk.
- The court of appeal reversed the judgment against Gulf States, holding that Kent's own fault barred his recovery, and affirmed the dismissal of all other defendants.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted Kent's application for certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the transmission of electricity over high-voltage lines an ultrahazardous activity that imposes absolute liability on the utility company for resulting injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Lemmon, J.
No, the transmission of electricity is not an ultrahazardous activity imposing absolute liability; rather, the utility's conduct is assessed under a negligence standard. The court distinguished between three theories of liability: negligence, strict liability under C.C. Art. 2317, and absolute liability for ultrahazardous activities. Absolute liability is reserved for activities like blasting that are inherently dangerous even with utmost care. Transmitting electricity is a common, everyday activity that can be done safely, and injuries almost always result from substandard conduct by the utility, the victim, or a third party. Strict liability under Art. 2317, which presumes the owner's knowledge of a defect, is inapplicable here because Gulf States had actual knowledge of the lines' danger, making the analysis a standard negligence inquiry into the reasonableness of its conduct. Under that analysis, Gulf States did not act unreasonably because the lines were 'insulated by isolation' at a proper height, and the injury resulted from a unique combination of unforeseeable factors, including the use of an exceptionally long metal pole in a dangerous manner by a worker who was aware of the specific risk.
Concurring - Marcus, J.
No. The concurring opinion agrees that Gulf States is not strictly or absolutely liable. It adds that there was no defect in the power lines to trigger strict liability under Art. 2317 and that, in any event, the plaintiff's own contributory negligence and assumption of the risk would bar his recovery.
Concurring - Dennis, J.
No. This concurrence elaborates on the majority's reasoning, explaining that strict liability under Art. 2317 involves a balancing test similar to negligence but imputes knowledge of the risk to the defendant. Since Gulf States had actual knowledge, a standard negligence analysis applies, and under that analysis, the company was not negligent. Furthermore, even if transmitting electricity were deemed an ultrahazardous activity, the plaintiff's fault in knowingly and unreasonably assuming the risk of electrocution would preclude his recovery.
Dissenting - Watson, J.
Yes, under these circumstances, the transmission of electricity was an ultrahazardous activity. Given the heavy construction occurring directly underneath the uninsulated lines, Gulf States owed a high degree of care. Merely meeting the minimum height clearance was insufficient. The dissent argues that the accident was reasonably foreseeable and that Gulf States was negligent for failing to take extra precautions, such as installing temporary insulation over the lines in the construction zone. Therefore, the jury's verdict against Gulf States should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its clarification of the distinct categories of tort liability in Louisiana: negligence, strict liability, and absolute liability. By holding that electricity transmission is not an ultrahazardous activity, the court limited the application of automatic, absolute liability to a narrow class of inherently dangerous activities. This decision establishes that future cases involving injuries from power lines will be primarily evaluated under a negligence framework, focusing on the reasonableness of the utility's conduct and the foreseeability of the specific harm. This raises the burden for plaintiffs, who must prove the utility acted unreasonably rather than merely proving causation from an inherently dangerous activity.
