Court Opinion

ID: 9662510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:11:37.818783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:40.265554
License: Public Domain

DON BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s resolution of the sufficiency of the evidence issue. The majority states: “From the evidence presented, the jury reasonably could have concluded Volks’ negligence, including its veto of the burial of the line, was the sole cause of the accident.” I am afraid the majority does not fully appreciate the legal duty of a power company under Louisiana law. In Hebert v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 426 So.2d 111, 114-15 (La.1983) (citations omitted), Justice Cologero3 stated:
Electric transmission companies which maintain and employ high power lines are required to exercise the utmost care to reduce hazards to life as far as practicable. However, an electric utility is not required to guard against situations which cannot reasonably be expected or contemplated.
[[Image here]]
... The three-fold duty of the utility in cases where injury is easily associated with the transmission of electricity over high power lines, as set forth in Simon [v. Southwest La. Elec. Membership Corp., 390 So.2d 1265 (La.1980) ], is (1) to insulate the lines, or (2) to warn adequately of the danger, or (3) to take other proper and reasonable precautions to prevent injury....
Later the Louisiana Supreme Court, in Levi v. Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Cooperative, 542 So.2d 1081, 1084-85 (La.1989) (citations omitted), commented further on the duty of utmost care:
Pursuant to this duty, a power company has an obligation to make reasonable inspections of wires and other instru-mentalities in order to discover and remedy hazards and defects. Consequently, a company will be considered to have constructive knowledge of an electrical hazard which has existed for a period of time which would reasonably permit discovery had the company adequately performed its duties.
An Entergy employee testified that as early as 1979 Entergy knew cranes were to be used in the yard. The fact that Volk would not pay for burial of the lines in the 1993-1994 expansion does not relieve En-tergy of their duty to both inspect the facilities for potential hazards and to properly insulate the lines by isolation, i.e. raise the lines above the height of cranes. There are many Louisiana cases recognizing this duty and finding utility companies negligent for failing to recognize the danger of low lines and failing to remedy the danger. See Fleniken v. Entergy Corp., 780 So.2d 1175 (La.Ct.App.), writ denied, 793 So.2d 1250 (La.2001); Ayres v. Beauregard Elec. Coop., 663 So.2d 127 (La.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 664 So.2d 455 (La.1995); Duncan v. La. Power & Light Co., 594 So.2d 1119 (La.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 600 So.2d 644 (La.1992); Lajaunie v. Central La. Elec. Co., 552 So.2d 746 (La.Ct.App.1989), *890cert. denied, 558 So.2d 1130 (La.1990); and Horton v. Valley Elec. Membership Corp., 461 So.2d 375 (La.Ct.App.1984).
Here the jury’s failing to attribute any negligence4 whatsoever to Entergy is clearly against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

. Now Chief Justice of the Court.

. It would be improper for me to suggest what percentage of negligence should be assigned, but certainly greater than zero.