Court Opinion

ID: 9845975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:32:16.739841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:30.433998
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I reluctantly concur in the judgment of the majority because I must concede that the decisions cited in Division 1 mandate the affirmance of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant. In my opinion, however, it is unfortunate that where the trial court’s order shows reliance upon the National Electric Safety Code and such reliance is incorrect because of application of established evidentiary principles, the error, thus existing neither authorizes nor supports reversal. I regret that our case law is such that when a body is broken or a life is extinguished under circumstances normally judged by all of the usual principles of tort law, such principles are inapplicable simply because this type of fact situation automatically receives a judicially approved label of "no actionable negligence.” A case by case analysis would be more logical and more prudent because it would be just and equitable.