Court Opinion

ID: 9451270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:12:06.779374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:38.539029
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, District Judge
(dissenting) :
The majority here concludes that under the facts Payne, rather than Monsanto Chemical (which owned and maintained the electrical apparatus), had su*970perior knowledge of the hazards involved, and therefore there was no duty on the part of Monsanto to warn Payne. If this were a case where plaintiff had been .shocked by a current of electricity flowing through lines, I would be inclined to concur; but there Payne certainly had no knowledge, nor did he appreciate, the existence of a cracked insulator, the defect in which was hidden from his view by a crust that Monsanto had permitted to form around the insulator. The jury who saw and heard Payne found that he did not appreciate the hazard and that he did not voluntarily expose himself to a known and appreciated danger. The evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in my judgment, support the jury’s finding.
Defendant owned and maintained the electrical machinery and premises, but it permitted a #eth inch crust to form on the insulator. The defect would have been visible to plaintiff, had the crust not been permitted to cover the insulator. The evidence supports at least a reasonable inference that the insulator had been subjected to vibration for a considerable length of time, since the insulator was dirty and weather beaten, and the conductors leading to the insulators were deteriorated and rotten. The defendant knew how long the insulators had been used, and how long these insulators had been subjected to the vibration of the transformer substations. Yet, the defendant did not impart any of this knowledge to the plaintiff. The jury could have well concluded that if the defendant had informed plaintiff of this, he might have protected himself against the specific danger to which he was subjected. He might well have insisted that Monsanto de-energize its lines.
My examination of the record and the law leaves me with a definite conclusion that the court below did not err in sending this case to the jury. I cannot agree with the majority that there was no genuine issue as to whether defendant breached its duty. A jury could reasonably find, and did find, otherwise.
I respectfully dissent.