Title: Nordgren v. Western Colorado Power Company
Citation: 448 P.2d 643
Docket Number: 23107
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: December 9, 1968

448 P.2d 643 (1968) Byron NORDGREN, Plaintiff in Error, v. The WESTERN COLORADO POWER COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Defendant In Error. No. 23107. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. December 9, 1968. Rehearing Denied January 13, 1969. Marvin Dansky, Denver, for plaintiff in error. Loesch, Kreidler &amp; Durham, Harrison Loesch, Montrose, for defendant in error. MOORE, Chief Justice. Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to by name, was employed as an unskilled laborer by Monument Construction, Inc., which was engaged in erecting a steel building on a large floor space which had been entirely covered by a concrete slab. The building was being erected in Delta county for use as a storage place for fruit. The power lines of the Western Colorado Power Company passed directly over the building site before the construction work began. However, prior to the accident which resulted in injuries to Nordgren, the defendant company moved the line so that it did not remain above the concrete slab at any point. From one corner of the steel structure the line was 12 to 15 feet removed from the building, and from that point was extended diagonally away from the building site in a sharp angle which increased the distance from the building being erected. Nordgren was on the building site when the power line was moved, and he knew that the line was a high voltage wire. At its new location the line was strung in full conformity with recognized standards of safety. It was 35 feet 9 inches above the ground at the point where the contact was made which caused plaintiff's injuries. On August 25, 1965, and prior thereto, a portable hoist tower was used by the construction crew. It was mounted on a tripod device having three wheels which were equipped with inflated tires. The workmen moved it about on the concrete slab as occasion required in the erection of the building. The tower portion of the device extended upward in sections. On August 25, 1965, it extended upward to a point above the power line. At about noon on that date Nordgren and other workmen were instructed by their foreman to move the hoist to a different position so that it would be available for use following the lunch period. In complying with this directive of the foreman, Nordgren and others pushed the hoist off the concrete slab and the top portion of the metal hoist came in contact with the high voltage wire above mentioned resulting in very severe injuries to the plaintiff. He brought action in the district court alleging that the injuries sustained were proximately caused by the negligence of Western Colorado Power Company. A jury was selected to try the action. At the conclusion of the evidence offered on*644 behalf of Nordgren, counsel for Western Colorado Power moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that no negligence of the company had been shown, and that even if negligence had been established, the evidence of contributory negligence as a matter of law prevented a recovery by Nordgren. The trial court sustained the motion and in so doing commented as follows: The action was dismissed and Nordgren is here on writ of error. As grounds for reversal his attorney presents argument under three captions as follows: We are unable to find any evidence in the record before us which would sustain a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. No negligence on the part of the defendant power company was shown. The undisputed facts are somewhat comparable to those which were present in Currence v. Denver Tramway Corporation, 132 Colo. 328, 287 P.2d 967, from which we quote the following: To like effect is the holding of this court in Crandall v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, 149 Colo. 140, 368 P.2d 414, in which this court affirmed the action of the district court in directing a verdict in favor of the Morgan County Rural Electrict Association. In that opinion we find the following: Careful analysis of the record leads inescapably to the conclusion that there was no evidence showing a breach of duty to Nordgren on the part of the defendant. PRINGLE and KELLEY, JJ., concur.