Opinion ID: 901358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Applicability of the NEC

Text: [¶ 9.] [A]n unexcused violation of a statute enacted to promote safety constitutes negligence per se. Fritz v. Howard Township, 1997 SD 122, ¶ 17, 570 N.W.2d 240, 243 (quoting Thompson v. Summers, 1997 SD 103, ¶ 16, 567 N.W.2d 387, 393). South Dakota has adopted the NEC. [1] The purpose of the NEC is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity. The NEC has a specific section dedicated to neon lighting and the provisions of this section detail a number of electrical considerations specific to the art of neon lighting installation. These safety rules are intended to protect the general public from the improper installation of neon lighting systems. [¶ 10.] LaFave alleges the neon lighting system of the Hertz Motel violates a number of NEC provisions. [2] On appeal, Ross does not contest these alleged violations but asserts that the NEC is not intended to govern untrained persons such as himself, rather it sets the standard for engineers, electrical contractors and electricians. As authority, he cites SDCL 36-16-16(4), which provides that persons who replace lamps and connect portable electrical devices to suitable receptacles that have been permanently installed are not required to have an electrician's license. Since Ross was only disconnecting and then reconnecting neon tubing that had been permanently installed many years prior to the incident, he argues that he was not required to hold an electrician's license and therefore the NEC standards do not apply to his work. [¶ 11.] Ross' argument is contradicted by Dan Choudek (Choudek), a professional engineer and the president of a forensic electrical engineering consulting firm. Choudek testified that the NEC applies to the end product or the work that's done and that it specifies what the work product or end product should be as opposed to specifying who can do the work. Furthermore, Pete Bruce (Bruce), who owns a sign business comparable to Ross Signs, testified that if the neon lighting installation is out of compliance with the NEC at the time of reinstallation, the installer must reinstall the tubes to comply with NEC standards. [¶ 12.] Based on the above, the trial court did not err in holding that the NEC was enacted to protect the public from personal injuries and property damage resulting from the improper installation of neon lighting systems, that South Dakota has adopted the NEC, and that neon tube installers such as Ross are not exempt from complying with the code. However, even if Ross' actions constituted negligence per se, liability must depend upon negligence causing the fire and being the proximate cause of the damages.