Levi v. Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Cooperative (SLEMCO)
542 So.2d 1081 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A company that maintains and employs high-voltage power lines is held to a standard of utmost care and is negligent if it fails to take inexpensive and available precautions against a foreseeable risk of serious harm, even if that harm may be triggered by the occasional inattentiveness of others.
Facts:
- In the 1960s, Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Cooperative (Slemco) constructed an uninsulated 14,400-volt power line through an oil field owned by Amoco Oil Company.
- For most of the 22 wells in the field, Slemco deliberately routed the line to avoid crossing access roads or coming in close proximity to the wells.
- Due to an oversight, the line at the E.C. Stuart #2 Well was routed across the only access road, positioning it 40.5 feet from the wellhead and 25.7 feet high.
- Amoco employees, including Giovanni Levi, regularly serviced wells in the field using a paraffin removal truck equipped with a mast that could be raised to a height of 34 feet.
- Slemco had actual knowledge that workers used such high-masted equipment in the field, and a Slemco employee had previously warned other crews about driving under power lines with their masts raised.
- On February 16, 1982, Levi and a coworker drove their truck to the E.C. Stuart #2 well site, not to service the well, but to find a dry location to repair their equipment.
- While parked near the wellhead, Levi began to raise the truck's mast to lower a piece of equipment to the ground for repairs.
- During this process, the mast either contacted or came in close proximity to the uninsulated power line, causing Levi to be electrocuted and sustain severe, permanently disabling injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Giovanni Levi sued Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Cooperative (Slemco) and its insurer in a Louisiana state trial court.
- A jury found that Slemco's conduct did not fall below the reasonable standard of care, and the trial court entered a judgment for the defendants.
- The trial court denied Levi's motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.
- Levi, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Slemco, the appellee.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ to review the lower courts' decisions.
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 power company's conduct in operating an uninsulated high-voltage distribution line over the only access road to an oil well, where the company knows that workers regularly use mobile equipment with a mast tall enough to contact the line, constitute negligence because it creates an unreasonable risk of harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, Justice
Yes, the power company's conduct constituted negligence. A power company has a duty to exercise the utmost care to reduce hazards to life. The risk of harm was unreasonable because the gravity of the potential injury (electrocution) and the likelihood of its occurrence outweighed the minimal burden of taking precautions. Slemco should have recognized the risk, given its knowledge of the work practices in the oil field and the fact that its own design plan at other wells systematically avoided this exact hazard. The law requires entities to anticipate and guard against the occasional, foreseeable negligence of others, especially when the potential harm is great. The court applied a balancing test (the Hand formula), concluding that the product of the probability of the accident and the gravity of the harm far exceeded the low cost of precautions such as rerouting the line, insulating it, raising its height, or adding warnings.
Concurring - Marcus, Justice
Yes, the power company breached its high duty of care. The risk of the accident was within the scope of the duty Slemco owed to the plaintiff, and its failure to take precautions constituted negligence. The case should be remanded to the court of appeal to also consider the plaintiff's own negligence, if any, under the principles of comparative negligence.
Dissenting - Lemmon, Justice
No, the power company's conduct did not constitute negligence in this specific instance because it was not a cause-in-fact of the accident. The company's duty was to protect against foreseeable dangers arising from oilfield activities related to servicing the well. This accident did not occur during a well-servicing operation; rather, the plaintiff was merely using the site as a convenient location to perform an unrelated repair. The accident would have occurred exactly as it did regardless of the well's proximity, as the plaintiff simply chose a spot under the power line to work. There is no ease of relationship between the duty owed (to protect against well-servicing hazards) and the risk that materialized (an unrelated repair job).
Analysis:
This case reinforces the 'utmost care' standard applicable to utility companies handling high-voltage electricity in Louisiana. It provides a clear judicial application of the Learned Hand formula (B < PL) for determining whether a risk is unreasonable, emphasizing that a low-cost burden of precaution is required when facing a high-gravity harm, even if the probability is not high. The decision significantly impacts premises liability for utilities by establishing that their duty of care includes anticipating and protecting against the foreseeable, occasional negligence of workers on the premises. It rejects the notion that a company can fully rely on others to exercise perfect care to avoid an obvious danger it created.
