Court Opinion

ID: 9585135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:56:41.692357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:28.101651
License: Public Domain

Agosti, J.,
with whom Leavitt, J., agrees, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the district court’s order and remand the matter for trial.
Initially, I note that the majority has determined that Raymond Haggerty’s injuries were not caused by contact with an overhead line within the meaning of NRS 455.200(2). It should stop there. Its conclusion that the overhead power line statutes create an independent duty to indemnify need not and should not be reached if the circumstances of this case do not bring it within the parameters of the overhead power line statutes. As stated in City of North Las Vegas v. Cluff, 85 Nev. 200, 201, 452 P.2d 461, 462 (1969), “[tjhis court is confined to controversies in the true sense. The parties must be adverse and the issues ripe for determination.’ ’
I also note that the issue of whether the power lines located in the Horseshoe Club’s basement are “overhead line[sj” within the meaning of NRS 455.200(2) was never raised in the district court. This issue was first raised on appeal in an amicus curiae brief filed by the Nevada Self-Insurers Association. For this reason, I believe that this court should not consider this issue at this time. *370See Diamond Enterprises, Inc. v. Lau, 113 Nev. 1376, 1378, 951 P.2d 73 , 74 (1997) (“It is well established that arguments raised for the first time on appeal need not be considered by this court.”).
While I agree with the majority that NRS 455.240 permits indemnification if the provisions of NRS 455.230 are violated, I dissent because I believe that the electrical equipment which caused Haggerty’s injuries does fit within the definition of an overhead power line.
I agree with the majority that the term “above ground” is subject to a variety of interpretations. I disagree that in the context of the statute in question, “above ground” excludes a basement. A worker standing in a basement is certainly standing above the ground below his feet. And the power line located near the roof of a room in a basement is certainly overhead in the sense that it is above the worker. I also believe that nothing in the language of NRS 455.200(2)1 compels the conclusion that the line must be in the open air, outside or above sea level. The simplest and best interpretation of this statute is that “above ground” means not buried.
An important purpose of the overhead power line statutes is to promote worker safety. This purpose is best accomplished if an employer is provided with an economic incentive to notify the applicable utility whenever an employee must work within close proximity to a power line maintained by the utility.
This court has consistently determined that a statute with a protective purpose should be liberally construed in order to effectuate the intended protection. For example, in Tobin v. Gartiez, 44 Nev. 179, 191 R 1063 (1920), this court interpreted a statute which prohibited unauthorized grazing on the land of a person with “legal title.” Id. at 186-87, 191 P. at 1065. This court determined that “legal title” included a lessee because the statute was enacted to protect those with a right to the exclusive occupation of the land. Id.
This court interpreted a mining statute in Ex Parte Douglass, 53 Nev. 188, 295 P. 447 (1931). In Douglass, this court held that a statute which required mine shafts to be equipped with a “safety cage, safety crosshead or safety skip” required a safety cage and either a safety crosshead or safety skip, rather than reading the statute as providing three alternatives, because the statute was enacted to promote the safety of miners as they traveled up and down mine shafts. Id. at 191-92, 295 P. at 448 (quoting Section *37110480, N.C.L as amended (1913 Nev. Stat., ch. 267, § 1, at 422-23)).
More recently, this court interpreted a real estate licensing statute in Brill v. State Real Estate Division, 95 Nev. 917, 604 P.2d 113 (1979). In Brill, the issue was whether a twenty-five dollar fee charged by the defendant for access to an index of available homes for sale and rent was an “advance fee,” thus mandating that the defendant obtain a real estate license. This court determined that the fee was in fact an “advance fee,” because the purpose of the real estate license statute was to protect the public from unqualified persons. Id. at 9Í9-20, 604 P.2d at 114.
A few years later, this court decided Colello v. Administrator, Real Estate Div., 100 Nev. 344, 683 P.2d 15 (1984). In Colello, the appellants received a judgment against a real estate licensee on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation and embezzlement. After appellants unsuccessfully attempted to collect from the licensee, they obtained $10,000.00 from the Real Estate Education, Research and Recovery Fund (“Fund”) pursuant to Nevada law. This court held that appellants were only required to assign $10,000.00 of their judgment to the Fund despite statutory language that “the judgment creditor shall assign all his right, title and interest in the judgment” because the statute was intended to protect judgment creditors without requiring them to forsake their entire judgment to collect a portion. Id. at 346 n.2 and 347-48, 683 P.2d at 16 n.2 and 16-17 (emphasis added) (NRS 645.8491 quoted in footnote 2).
I believe that Nevada’s overhead power line statutes should be liberally construed as were the statutes in the noted cases. I believe a liberal construction is all the more compelling when the protective purpose of a statute involves physical safety As previously stated, the purpose of the statutes in question here is to promote worker safety. The legislature determined it could best do so if it provided an incentive for an employer to report work conducted in proximity to power lines. Neither the statute nor the legislative history distinguishes between outdoor and indoor power lines. The danger posed to an employee is certainly not reduced if the power line is located indoors, as demonstrated by what happened to Haggerty I believe that the purpose of the overhead power line statutes would be best accomplished if the statutes were interpreted to apply to all exposed power lines, without regard to whether they are located outside or inside, on a wooden pole or in a basement.
Finally, the majority bases its decision, in part, on the concern that a ruling for Nevada Power would mean that Nevada Power *372might charge repeated supervisory fees to the Horseshoe Club whenever an employee works near the electrical room. Nothing exists in the record to support this assertion. This court “has no power to look outside of the record of a case.” Carson Ready Mix v. First Nat’l Bank, 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276, 277 (1981) (quoting Alderson v. Gilmore, 13 Nev. 84, 85 (1878)).
For all of the above reasons, I would reverse the order of the district court and remand this matter for trial.

“ ‘Overhead line’ means a bare or insulated electrical conductor installed above ground.”