Opinion ID: 1809003
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The type of injury or harm threatened

Text: Finally, DiBiasi argues that the type of injury or harm threatened was grave (i.e., death or severe injury by electrocution). DiBiasi's brief at 28. In her reply brief, DiBiasi argues that the circumstances presented here obviously involve a high potential for severe personal injury or death. DiBiasi's reply brief at 11. DiBiasi does not, however, address how Joe Wheeler's act of allowing another utility company to use its pole involved such a potential. In fact, DiBiasi does not allege that Joe Wheeler's act alone contributed to Dominic's death. Instead, DiBiasi argues that [t]he combined actions of [Hartselle] and Joe Wheeler placed uninsulated high voltage transmission lines within just a few feet of the roof line of a private residence. DiBiasi's reply brief at 11. DiBiasi's arguments are premised on the transmission of electricity; DiBiasi has not addressed the type of injury or harm that was threatened by Joe Wheeler's act of supplying a utility pole. Even assuming that Dominic's injuries were foreseeable, we conclude that none of the other Morgan factors support the existence of a legal duty [owed by Joe Wheeler] sufficient to support an action for negligence. Morgan, 466 So.2d at 114. Therefore, based on our review and application of the Morgan factors, we hold that Joe Wheeler did not owe a duty of care to Dominic.