Koch v. Norris Public Power District
10 Neb. Ct. App. 453, 632 N.W.2d 391, 2001 Neb. App. LEXIS 177 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be applied to infer negligence when a high-voltage powerline, under the exclusive control of a power company, falls and causes damage without a clear explanation, as such an event does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence.
Facts:
- Verdell and Priscilla Koch owned a 500-acre farm in rural DeWitt, Nebraska.
- Norris Public Power District (Norris) owned and maintained a high-voltage powerline that ran across the Koches' property.
- On October 26, 1996, a section of the powerline fell into the Koches' field during windy but otherwise clear weather.
- The fallen line ignited a fire that burned 86.6 acres of the Koches' cornfield and other property.
- Norris was exclusively responsible for maintaining the powerline; the public, including the Koches, were not permitted to have any control over it.
- Norris suggested that the line may have been damaged by hunters or vandals, but there was no direct evidence of such activity.
- After the fire, Norris employees retrieved the broken powerline from a Dumpster, and it was later destroyed during undisclosed testing.
Procedural Posture:
- Verdell and Priscilla Koch sued Norris Public Power District in a Nebraska trial court, alleging negligence under the theory of res ipsa loquitur.
- At the close of all evidence, Norris renewed its motion for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted Norris's motion for a directed verdict, finding the Koches had introduced insufficient evidence to prove Norris had exclusive control or that the incident would not have occurred without Norris's negligence.
- The Koches, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order to the intermediate appellate 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:
Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to establish a prima facie case of negligence when a powerline under a power company's exclusive control falls and causes a fire, despite the mere possibility of third-party interference like vandalism?
Opinions:
Majority - Hannon, Judge.
Yes. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to establish a prima facie case of negligence under these circumstances. The court reasoned by applying the three-part test for res ipsa loquitur. First, the court concluded that high-voltage powerlines do not, in the ordinary course of things, fall in the absence of negligence; a 40-mile-per-hour wind is not an act of God sufficient to explain the failure. Second, Norris had exclusive control over the powerline, as it was responsible for all maintenance and the public was prohibited from interfering with it. The court held that a plaintiff is not required to eliminate with certainty all other possible causes, and the mere unsupported suggestion of vandalism does not defeat the element of exclusive control. Third, Norris failed to provide a credible, non-negligent explanation for the line's failure; its theory of vandalism was deemed speculative. Therefore, the inference of negligence was permissible, and the issue should have been submitted to the jury.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of res ipsa loquitur to incidents involving public utilities and dangerous instrumentalities. The court's decision establishes that the 'exclusive control' element is not defeated by a defendant's mere speculation about possible third-party intervention, such as vandalism. This holding lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in such cases, allowing them to reach a jury without direct proof of a specific negligent act by the utility. It reinforces the principle that entities managing inherently dangerous equipment have a high duty of care and cannot easily shift blame by proposing remote or unsupported alternative causes for an accident.
