DOBSON V. LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 567 So.2d 569 (1990) CASE BRIEF

DOBSON V. LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

567 So.2d 569 (1990)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Dobson (P) appealed a judgment from the Court of Appeal, in their wrongful death suit, against Power (D) for a tree trimmer's electrocution death. The Court reversed a finding that P was not at fault, found P 70 percent at fault, affirmed the finding that the power company was at fault, and reapportioned damages.

FACTS: P was electrocuted when his metallically reinforced safety rope contacted an uninsulated 8,000-volt electric power distribution line. P was electrocuted while attempting to remove a pine tree from the backyard of a house owned by a Mrs. Davidge. P was wearing a safety line he had made by inserting a metal wire inside a 13-foot nylon rope. He used the safety line to lash himself to the tree while cutting with his chain saw, and he had inserted the wire in the rope to prevent it from being accidentally severed by the saw. His safety line touched one of the uninsulated distribution lines and he was electrocuted. P filed a wrongful death suit against D. Evidence was presented that P may have been partly responsible for his own death. The trial judge concluded that D was guilty of several negligent acts or omissions that caused the fatal accident: Despite constructive and actual knowledge of the dangers created by its uninsulated lines and right of way conditions, it failed to perform adequate inspections of its electric lines, trim or remove the tree or trees creating the hazard, provide insulated covering of dangerous parts of the lines, or place adequate warnings of the high voltage electricity on or near its uncovered wires. It found that D failed to warn P of the dangers associated with its high voltage distribution lines. The trial judge ultimately found that P did not know of or appreciate the special danger created by the uninsulated overhead high voltage distribution lines; and further that P was not negligent because he was unaware of the extreme danger. The trial court awarded over $1 million in damages. D appealed. The court of appeals reduced the recovery by 70 percent based on a finding that P had been partly at fault. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner