Opinion ID: 848729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: electric utility companies owe the public a broad duty

Text: The Court today affirms the holding in Groncki that inadvertent contact with overhead electric utility lines is not reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law. Therefore, electric utilities do not owe a duty to others to take reasonable precautions to guard against that risk. I cannot agree. It is quite reasonably foreseeable that someone may act in negligent disregard for his own safety and contact an overhead electric utility line. I take judicial notice that, with respect to electrical lines, about five percent of all workplace fatalities each year are electrocutions. United States Dep't of Labor, 2002 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (Charts), & It;http:// www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0001.pdf> (accessed May 3, 2004). Heavy equipment that reaches great heights is routinely operated in modern society. Thus, under the appropriate negligence analysis, electric utilities owe a duty to the general public to conduct their business so as not to create an unreasonable risk of accidental electrocution. As this Court has held: Those engaged in transmitting electricity are bound to anticipate ordinary use of the area surrounding the lines and to appropriately safeguard the attendant risks. The test to determine whether a duty was owed is not whether the company should have anticipated the particular act from which the injury resulted, but whether it should have foreseen the probability that injury might result from any reasonable activity done on the premises for business, work, or pleasure.... Where service wires erected and maintained by an electric utility company carry a powerful electric current, so that persons coming into contact with or proximity to them are likely to suffer serious injury or death, the company must exercise reasonable care to protect the public from danger. The degree of care required is that used by prudent persons in the industry, under like conditions and proportionate to the dangers involved, to guard against reasonably foreseeable or anticipated contingencies. [ Schultz v. Consumers Power Co., 443 Mich. 445, 452-454, 506 N.W.2d 175 (1993) (emphasis added).] In short, electric companies have a duty to conduct themselves reasonably under the circumstances. In this case, the majority frames the issue as whether defendant had a duty to do a specific act: de-energize a severed line until the cause of the fault can be determined. It then treats Steven Valcaniant's negligence as conclusive evidence that defendant does not owe a duty to perform that act. The majority finds that it is not reasonably foreseeable that someone in Mr. Valcaniant's position would contact the electrical line involved here. The majority's analysis might be appropriate in a contributory negligence jurisdiction where the effect of the plaintiff's negligence, even when slight, is to absolve the defendant of all legal liability. But, Michigan long ago abandoned this harsh tort theory. Placek v. Sterling Hts., 405 Mich. 638, 701, 275 N.W.2d 511 (1979). Rather, a defendant may be liable to a negligent plaintiff to the extent his negligence caused the plaintiff's injury. See M.C.L. § 600.2956. Here, it is reasonably foreseeable that heavy equipment, such as the raised bed of a dump truck, would contact an overhead electrical line, causing injury. Thus, defendant owed plaintiffs a duty to install its distribution lines in a manner that does not create an unreasonable risk from such a vehicle. I do not agree that, as a matter of law, electric utility companies owe the public no duty to take reasonable precautions to protect it from accidental contact with their lines. The absence of a duty encourages utility defendants to rely on customs in the industry and discourages innovation of new and safer ways to deliver electricity. Blind reliance on industry customs was rejected more than seventy years ago in the famous case of The T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737 (C.A.2, 1932). See also 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 295A, illus. 2. There, the owners of a tugboat failed to furnish emergency radios to their crew, because such radios were not standard equipment in the industry. The federal appeals court held that reliance on custom was a consideration in whether the defendant acted reasonably in providing for the crew's safety, but was not conclusive. That decision has encouraged the standard of care to evolve as technology advances. The same principle applies here.