Eblen v. Styles
436 SW 2d 504 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Maintaining a dangerous instrumentality, such as a highly-energized power line, constitutes negligence when its utility has ceased, and the risk of harm it poses is of such magnitude as to outweigh the minimal effort required to render it safe.
Facts:
- W. E. Styles held an oil lease and operated a secondary oil recovery operation on a tract of land.
- Marvin and Wallace Eblen were agricultural lessees on the same tract, where they raised hogs.
- Styles had erected and maintained 480-volt electrical lines to power pumps for his operation.
- The specific pumps connected to the lines in question had been out of use for approximately two years and were partially dismantled.
- Despite being unused, Styles left the electrical lines connected to the power source and energized.
- A partially dead sycamore tree was located near the energized lines.
- During a period of high winds, the dead part of the tree fell and knocked down the power lines.
- The downed, energized wires electrocuted 114 of the Eblens' hogs.
Procedural Posture:
- Marvin D. Eblen and Wallace C. Eblen (plaintiffs) sued W. E. Styles (defendant) in a Kentucky trial court, seeking damages for the loss of their hogs.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the Eblens in the amount of $6000.
- Styles (appellant) appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, arguing there was insufficient evidence of negligence and that the Eblens (appellees) were contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
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 maintaining highly-energized, uninsulated electrical wires for a substantial period after their utility has ceased constitute negligence when the risk of harm is significant and the effort to de-energize them is minimal?
Opinions:
Majority - Osborne, J.
Yes, maintaining highly-energized electrical wires for a substantial period after their utility has ceased constitutes negligence when the risk involved is great and the effort to make them safe is minimal. The court applied a risk-utility balancing test, concluding that the reasonableness of any conduct must be judged by the circumstances. Here, the utility of the energized lines was 'extremely low,' as they had not been used for two years and there was no plan for immediate reuse. Conversely, the risk was very high, as 480-volt lines are inherently dangerous and susceptible to weather. Since the lines could have been disconnected at the source in only five minutes, the significant risk of harm far outweighed their non-existent utility. The court summarized this principle by asking, 'Is the game worth the candle?' and concluded that the continued maintenance of the lines was negligent. The court also held that the question of the Eblens' contributory negligence for not warning Styles about the dead tree was a proper issue for the jury, as their belief that the unused lines were de-energized was not inherently unreasonable.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the risk-utility balancing test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts to situations involving the maintenance of dangerous instrumentalities. The decision establishes that the duty of care is not static; it requires reassessment as circumstances change. It creates a precedent that property owners and operators can be found negligent for failing to de-energize or otherwise make safe equipment that is no longer in use, even if it was lawfully constructed. This holding emphasizes that once the social utility of a dangerous condition disappears, the legal tolerance for the risk it poses diminishes drastically, especially when the burden of eliminating the risk is low.
Unlock the full brief for Eblen v. Styles