Opinion ID: 335104
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: IPS Negligence

Text: 8 The District Court found that IPS had negligently constructed and maintained the electric transmission line over Harbor Drive. We review this conclusion under the clearly erroneous standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). In re Flowers, 526 F.2d 242, 244 (8th Cir. 1975); Chicago & N.W. Ry. v. Minnesota Transfer Ry., 371 F.2d 129, 131 (8th Cir. 1967). See generally 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2590 (1971). 9 IPS does not dispute that its transmission line at Harbor Drive was strung at a maximum height of nineteen and one-half feet above the ground at the area of the intersection of Harbor Drive and Murray Street. Sioux City Ordinance § 17.04.070 provides in part: 10 All    electric wires    shall not be strung along    the streets    of the City at an elevation of less than twenty-five feet above the surface of the street    whereon they may be erected   . 11 Sioux City Ordinance § 12.04.110 similarly provides: 12 (N)o wire, cable, cross-arm or other device used in the transmission of electric current shall be maintained at any height less than 25 feet from the surface of the street in the City   . 13 The latter provision was also reproduced as part of the franchise agreement between IPS and Sioux City. 14 Under Iowa law, the question of whether violation of such city ordinances constitutes negligence per se or merely prima facie evidence of negligence is decided in light of the purpose and intent of the provisions. Jorgensen v. Horton, 206 N.W.2d 100, 102 (Iowa 1973); Montgomery v. Engel,179 N.W.2d 478, 483-84 (Iowa 1970). See Lamasters v. Snodgrass,248 Iowa 1377, 1383-85, 85 N.W.2d 622, 625-27 (1957). See generally W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 36 (4th ed. 1971). The District Court apparently construed the purpose and intent of these ordinances to require a finding of negligence per se for their violation. The District Court's interpretation of these local laws is entitled to great deference, Ideal Plumbing Co. v. Benco, Inc., 529 F.2d 972, 979 (8th Cir. 1976); Carson v. National Bank of Commerce Trust and Savings, 501 F.2d 1082, 1083 (8th Cir. 1974), and cannot be said to be in error. 15 IPS contends, however, that since the transmission line was not directly above the paved surface of Harbor Drive, the proper measure of its elevation under these ordinances would be the length of a straight line hypothetically drawn from the edge of the traveled surface of Harbor Drive to the line. A triangulation prepared for this purpose and entered into evidence indicated that the distance along such a line would be twenty-six feet. IPS thus asserts that since the transmission line is thereby shown never to extend within twenty-five feet from the surface of the street, there was no proof that it was negligent or otherwise violative of the ordinances. 16 This is not a realistic interpretation of the ordinances. The provisions are not addressed merely to distances, but speak in terms of elevation and height. The lines are not to be placed twenty-five feet away from the surfaces of streets, but twenty-five feet above such surfaces. Moreover, IPS incorrectly perceives the surface of a street to include only the paved or traveled portions. Sioux City Ordinance § 10.04.440 defines street as the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Cf. Hal v. Town of Keota, 248 Iowa 131, 135, 79 N.W.2d 784, 786 (1956). Since the transmission line was clearly within the boundaries of Harbor Drive, the IPS triangulation theory, if viable, would produce a measurement which was violative of the ordinances. 17 The finding of negligent construction and maintenance of the wires by IPS thus cannot be said to be clearly erroneous. 3