Opinion ID: 2464236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: On November 1, 1983, the plaintiff, while working as a groundman, was seriously injured by an electrical shock. The accident occurred during the course of a renovation project known as the Iberia Rephase, which included the installation of 19 new poles to replace the poles supporting a single phase line carrying 7,200 volts of electricity. The new poles, numbered from west to east, spanned a distance of approximately one mile on the north side of, and generally parallel to, Highway 42 west. The single phase line, consisting of one energized line called the hot phase and a neutral, was to be replaced by a three phase line consisting of three energized lines, or conductors, and one neutral. On August 16, 1983, Gascosage and Tel-Elec entered into a contract for Tel-Elec to construct the Iberia Rephase. The contract provided that the work was to be done hot, that is, with the three phase line being strung while the hot phase of the single phase line remained energized so that the electrical service to customers would not be interrupted. Eazy Construction Company was not a party to the action but played an important role in the litigated event. The precise business relationship between Tel-Elec and Eazy must be determined by further evidentiary hearing, but the parties agree that Eazy, and not Tel-Elec, did all the work on the Iberia Rephase, and that the plaintiff had been hired as a groundman by Eazy on October 28, 1983. The accident occurred in the afternoon of November 1, 1983. The A and C conductors had been tightened up and the crew was working on the B conductor. To remove the excess slack a lineman up in a cherry-picker would attach a rope handline to the conductor. The rope ran through a set of pulleys on the pole to a pickup truck to which it was attached. The truck would pull the slack out of the conductor. The excess length of conductor ran down the backside of the pole, and was rolled up on a wire take-up reel. At the time of the accident plaintiff was tending the wire take-up reel located near pole 1. He had his left hand on the reel and his right hand on the B conductor. While the B conductor was being pulled by the truck it came into contact with the hot phase at a point between pole 9 and pole 10. It became energized and as a result Ballinger sustained serious and multiple injuries. Plaintiff's trial theory was that the accident was caused by the negligence of Eazy and that Tel-Elec and Gascosage were both vicariously liable for Eazy's negligence under the inherently dangerous activity doctrine. Basing its verdict on Instruction 8, quoted below, the jury found the issues in favor of plaintiff and against Gascosage and Tel-Elec, finding that they were both responsible for the conduct of Eazy and 100 percent at fault, and that the plaintiff was without fault. The verdict assessed his damages at $1,500,000. The lengthy jury trial was held in October of 1987. In April of 1985, in a proceeding under the Workers' Compensation Act, the plaintiff had received a lump sum settlement payment of $90,000 in addition to benefits previously received. The transcript of the hearing at which the compromise settlement was approved lists Ballinger's employer as Tel-Electric (sic) d/b/a Eazy Construction Company. That transcript contains a stipulation, to which the plaintiff and his attorney agreed, that on November 1, 1983, he while in the employ of Tel-Electric, d/b/a Eazy Construction Company, sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of [his] employment. Prior to the jury trial, Tel-Elec moved for summary judgment on the ground that the workers' compensation settlement was a bar to Ballinger's civil action against Tel-Elec. The plaintiff requested a separate trial on the workers' compensation issues, as did Tel-Elec. Tel-Elec's motion stated that it was engaged in a joint venture with Eazy at the time of the accident. The trial court ordered a separate trial as sought, and the jury trial was not concerned with the workers' compensation issues. After the verdict was returned, the trial court sustained the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Tel-Elec on the issue of workers' compensation immunity, and denied Tel-Elec's motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict against both defendants, with a $100,000 credit for a prior settlement with a dismissed party. The three parties filed separate appeals.