Opinion ID: 1809003
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The relationship between the parties

Text: DiBiasi argues that the relationship between Dominic and Joe Wheeler was that of a member of the community with an electrical co-op which has placed its instrumentalities of service into the community. DiBiasi's brief at 28. DiBiasi argues that the duty owed by Joe Wheeler extends to the safeguarding of everyone, in person or property, at places where he or it may rightfully be. DiBiasi's reply brief at 11 (citing Alabama Power Co. v. Matthews, supra). As noted previously, Matthews involved the presence of high-voltage transmission lines and their proximity to people and property. See Matthews, supra. Matthews is concerned with the danger arising from such lines, wherever they are located. However, the discussion in Matthews appears to be directed to those who maintain or operate the lines; it does not address what relationship, if any, exists between the general public and the owner of a utility pole. DiBiasi admits that Hartselle supplied the electricity to the Holt household and that it was Hartselle's transmission line that caused Dominic's death. DiBiasi's brief at 5 (It is undisputed that the high-voltage line that caused the death of [Dominic] was owned by [Hartselle].). Aside from the fact that that transmission line was attached to a pole owned by Joe Wheeler, there is no apparent relationship between Dominic and Joe Wheeler.