Opinion ID: 1299423
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: Marshall contends that DCPPD had a duty to inspect the dock and warn of the dangerous nature of its wiring because the dangerous nature of the wiring would have been readily apparent had the linemen looked at the dock. Essentially, Marshall contends that DCPPD should have known that the wiring on the dock was defective and, in light of this, should have refused to reenergize the lines or should have warned Thomas Marshall of the danger. DCPPD contends that it does not have a duty to inspect a customer's wiring unless it has actual notice of a danger. A power company engaged in the transmission of electricity is required to exercise reasonable care in the construction and maintenance of its lines. Engleman v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 228 Neb. 788, 424 N.W.2d 596 (1988); Tiede v. Loup Power Dist., 226 Neb. 295, 411 N.W.2d 312 (1987). However, power companies are not insurers and are not liable for damages in the absence of negligence. Engleman v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., supra ; Tiede v. Loup Power Dist., supra . It is well settled that unless a public utility has actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, the public utility has no duty to inspect or maintain power wires or appliances before supplying electrical power when those wires or appliances are owned or controlled by the customer. Central Power & Light Co. v. Romero, 948 S.W.2d 764 (Tex. App.1996); Carter v. Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co., 598 A.2d 739 (Me.1991); Upton v. Magnolia Elec. Power Ass'n, 511 So.2d 939 (Miss. 1987); Jenks v. Hill, 504 F.Supp. 1130 (W.D.Okla.1981); Summers v. Union Elec. Co., 565 S.W.2d 677 (Mo.App.1978); New Mexico Electric Service Co. v. Montanez, 89 N.M. 278, 551 P.2d 634 (1976); Kroger v. Omaha Public Power District, 523 F.2d 161 (8th Cir.1975) (applying Iowa law); Naki v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., 50 Haw. 416, 442 P.2d 55 (1968); Martin v. Northern States Power Co., 245 Minn. 454, 72 N.W.2d 867 (1955); Delaney v. Town of Etowah, 182 Tenn. 386, 187 S.W.2d 531 (1945); Oesterreich v. Claas, 237 Wis. 343, 295 N.W. 766 (1941). In the instant case, it is undisputed that the wiring beyond the meter pole, including the wiring on the dock, was owned and controlled by the customer and not by DCPPD. It is also undisputed that DCPPD did not have actual knowledge or notice of any defects in the wiring on the dock. Marshall's allegation that DCPPD should have known of the dangerous wiring because it would have become obvious if the linemen had looked at the dock is not sufficient to create a duty of inspection on the part of DCPPD. See, e.g., Jenks v. Hill, supra (constructive knowledge is insufficient where public utility has no independent duty to inspect, maintain, or repair). Accordingly, DCPPD did not have a duty to inspect or maintain the wiring of the dock, and summary judgment was appropriate. Having determined that there was no duty on the part of DCPPD to inspect the dock, we also determine that the refusal of the trial court to admit into evidence exhibit 8, an exhibit purporting to give an opinion of what the linemen could have or should have seen had they inspected the dock, was appropriate. The order of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.