Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co.
398 So. 2d 560 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's recovery in a tort action is barred when the evidence overwhelmingly shows they had full knowledge and appreciation of an obvious danger, had safe alternatives available, and voluntarily exposed themselves to that danger. This conduct, whether characterized as contributory negligence, victim fault, or assumption of risk, constitutes a complete defense to claims of both negligence and strict liability.
Facts:
- Keith Kent, an 18-year-old employee of Barber Brothers, was assigned to groove fresh concrete on a road construction project.
- He and a co-worker used a 30-foot-long aluminum pole attached to a metal rake for this task.
- Overhead was an uninsulated high-voltage power line owned by Gulf States Utilities Company, located approximately 24-25 feet above the new concrete.
- Instead of using a safe, available "bench" to move the tool across the wide concrete slab, Kent and his co-worker employed a "flip-flop" method, which involved raising the long aluminum pole high into the air.
- Kent and his co-worker were aware of the power line's presence and discussed the risk of electrocution.
- Multiple individuals, including his foreman, a state inspector, and another worker, explicitly warned Kent about the danger posed by the power line.
- Moments before the accident, after a final warning from a co-worker, Kent laughed and joked, "it's not going to get me; it will get my partner."
- While using the "flip-flop" method near the power line, the aluminum pole Kent was holding contacted the wire, causing his severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Milton Kent, Jr., on behalf of his son Keith Kent, filed a tort suit in a Louisiana trial court against Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU), the State of Louisiana, and several individuals.
- The trial court dismissed the State of Louisiana based on an exception of no cause of action, finding workmen's compensation to be the exclusive remedy.
- The plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with defendants L. Hilliard Barber, A. L. Barber, Jr., and their insurer, Allstate.
- A jury trial proceeded against the remaining defendants: GSU, W. L. Landon, Jr., and Killian H. Kupper.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $3,000,000, finding GSU and the settled Barber defendants liable, while finding Landon and Kupper not liable.
- The trial court entered a judgment against GSU for $1,000,000, representing its virile share of the total verdict.
- GSU appealed to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, challenging the finding of liability. The plaintiff also appealed, seeking to impose liability on Kupper and increase the award from GSU.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a construction worker's conduct bar his recovery for injuries sustained from electrocution when he, despite multiple explicit warnings and the availability of safe alternatives, knowingly and voluntarily uses a 30-foot aluminum pole in close proximity to a high-voltage power line?
Opinions:
Majority - Cole, Judge
Yes. The conduct of Keith Kent bars his recovery. The court found that regardless of whether the defendants' actions constituted negligence or gave rise to strict liability, Kent's own conduct provided a complete defense. The evidence overwhelmingly established that Kent (1) had full knowledge and appreciation of the danger of electrocution, as shown by his discussions and the multiple warnings he received; (2) had safe alternatives, such as using an available bench or walking the tool around the end of the slab; and (3) voluntarily chose to expose himself to the known risk, even joking about it moments before the incident. This conduct constituted contributory negligence, which defeats a negligence claim, and also established the defenses of "victim fault" and "assumption of risk," which defeat claims based on strict liability. Therefore, it was manifest error for the jury not to find that Kent's conduct barred his recovery.
Analysis:
This decision provides a strong illustration of how a plaintiff's own egregious conduct can serve as a complete bar to recovery, even in cases involving inherently dangerous instrumentalities like high-voltage power lines. It clarifies that under Louisiana law at the time, defenses like contributory negligence and assumption of risk were robust and could defeat claims based on both negligence and strict liability. The court's detailed analysis of Kent's awareness, the multiple warnings given, and the available alternatives serves as a classic factual example for establishing these defenses. The ruling emphasizes the principle that even where a defendant has a high duty of care, a plaintiff cannot invite injury by consciously disregarding a known and obvious danger.
