Opinion ID: 1809003
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Do the Morgan factors support imposing a duty on Joe Wheeler?

Text: Finally, DiBiasi argues that, under the factors identified in Morgan, supra, Joe Wheeler owed a duty to Dominic. Assuming, without holding, that DiBiasi could establish that Joe Wheeler could have foreseen that an individual would be electrocuted by a low-hanging transmission line owned by Hartselle and attached to Joe Wheeler's pole, none of the other Morgan factors support imposing a duty on Joe Wheeler.
DiBiasi argues that the nature of Joe Wheeler's activity, which it characterizes as the generation and transmission of high powered electrical current to the public, is hazardous and replete with danger requiring extreme caution. DiBiasi's brief at 27-28. Joe Wheeler notes that there was no such activity on its part and that its only activity was to allow [Hartselle] to connect its line to a Joe Wheeler pole. We recognize that, generally speaking, Joe Wheeler is in the business of generating and transmitting electricity; however, even viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to DiBiasi, the nonmovant, in this instance Joe Wheeler's only involvement in Dominic's death was that it had at some point allowed Hartselle to connect its line to a utility pole owned by Joe Wheeler.
DiBiasi argues that the relationship between Dominic and Joe Wheeler was that of a member of the community with an electrical co-op which has placed its instrumentalities of service into the community. DiBiasi's brief at 28. DiBiasi argues that the duty owed by Joe Wheeler extends to the safeguarding of everyone, in person or property, at places where he or it may rightfully be. DiBiasi's reply brief at 11 (citing Alabama Power Co. v. Matthews, supra). As noted previously, Matthews involved the presence of high-voltage transmission lines and their proximity to people and property. See Matthews, supra. Matthews is concerned with the danger arising from such lines, wherever they are located. However, the discussion in Matthews appears to be directed to those who maintain or operate the lines; it does not address what relationship, if any, exists between the general public and the owner of a utility pole. DiBiasi admits that Hartselle supplied the electricity to the Holt household and that it was Hartselle's transmission line that caused Dominic's death. DiBiasi's brief at 5 (It is undisputed that the high-voltage line that caused the death of [Dominic] was owned by [Hartselle].). Aside from the fact that that transmission line was attached to a pole owned by Joe Wheeler, there is no apparent relationship between Dominic and Joe Wheeler.
Finally, DiBiasi argues that the type of injury or harm threatened was grave (i.e., death or severe injury by electrocution). DiBiasi's brief at 28. In her reply brief, DiBiasi argues that the circumstances presented here obviously involve a high potential for severe personal injury or death. DiBiasi's reply brief at 11. DiBiasi does not, however, address how Joe Wheeler's act of allowing another utility company to use its pole involved such a potential. In fact, DiBiasi does not allege that Joe Wheeler's act alone contributed to Dominic's death. Instead, DiBiasi argues that [t]he combined actions of [Hartselle] and Joe Wheeler placed uninsulated high voltage transmission lines within just a few feet of the roof line of a private residence. DiBiasi's reply brief at 11. DiBiasi's arguments are premised on the transmission of electricity; DiBiasi has not addressed the type of injury or harm that was threatened by Joe Wheeler's act of supplying a utility pole. Even assuming that Dominic's injuries were foreseeable, we conclude that none of the other Morgan factors support the existence of a legal duty [owed by Joe Wheeler] sufficient to support an action for negligence. Morgan, 466 So.2d at 114. Therefore, based on our review and application of the Morgan factors, we hold that Joe Wheeler did not owe a duty of care to Dominic.