Court Opinion

ID: 9700826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:50:25.012495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:14.880622
License: Public Domain

*463Griffin, J.
(dissenting). This action stems from the electrocution of plaintiff’s decedent, Duane Schultz, who died while assisting a friend paint his house using an aluminum ladder near defendant Consumers Power Company’s 4,800 volt transmission lines. At trial, plaintiff Alice Schultz, personal representative of the estate of Duane Schultz, alleged that defendant was negligent in three respects: (1) in failing to properly maintain and repair the power line, (2) in installing the primary wire at an unsafe distance from the residence, and (3) in failing to warn of the hazard of arcing and failing to provide effective insulation of the power line. The Court of Appeals concluded, as a matter of law, that defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff upon the basis of its finding that "the evidence establishes a fortuitous circumstance, not a contingency reasonably anticipated.” Unpublished opinion per curiam, decided May 22, 1991 (Docket No. 118323). Because we are persuaded that the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals is sound, we dissent from the majority opinion for reversal.
I
In general, the liability of power companies for damages for personal injuries to the public or to their patrons is governed by the rules of negligence. Weissert v Escanaba, 298 Mich 443, 452; 299 NW 139 (1941). It is axiomatic that there can be no actionable negligence where there is no legal duty. Duty is a question of "whether the defendant is under any obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff” and requires that the court review several variables1 in determining whether *464" 'the relation between individuals . . . imposes upon one a legal obligation for the benefit of the other.’ ” Friedman v Dozorc, 412 Mich 1, 22; 312 NW2d 585 (1981).2
The question whether a duty exists depends in part on foreseeability: whether it was foreseeable that a defendant’s conduct may create a risk of harm to another person and whether the result of that conduct and intervening causes was foreseeable. McMillan v State Hwy Comm, 426 Mich 46, 61-62; 393 NW2d 332 (1986); Buczkowski v McKay, 441 Mich 96, 101; 490 NW2d 330 (1992).
Foreseeability has indeed been a determinative factor in ascertaining duty, or a lack thereof, in previous electrocution cases. Its role was explained by this Court in Clumfoot v St Clair Tunnel Co, 221 Mich 113, 116-117; 190 NW 759 (1922):
In order that the plaintiff may recover it must appear that his injury was the natural and probable consequence of a negligent act or omission of *465the defendant which under the circumstances an ordinarily prudent person ought reasonably to have foreseen or anticipated might possibly occur as a result of such act or omission.
. . . The test to be applied is, Was there a likelihood or reasonable probability of human contact with the wires by persons who had a right to be in a place from which such contact was possible? If so, the danger should have been foreseen or anticipated by the defendant.
In a number of instances since Cima foot was decided, Michigan courts have recognized that power companies "are bound to anticipate only such combinations of circumstances and accidents and injuries therefrom as they may reasonably forecast as likely to happen . . . .” Weissert, supra at 453.
In Dees v LF Largess Co, 1 Mich App 421; 136 NW2d 715 (1965), the plaintiff sustained injuries when a crane he was working on came into contact with a power transmission line carrying 24,000 volts of electricity. Defendant Detroit Edison’s alleged negligence was based on maintaining power transmission lines, elevated to a height of 37 feet at the poles and sagging to a height of 35 feet between the poles where the crane was operating, without dielectric covering. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, stating:
It is clear that the Edison Company had a right to maintain transmission lines in the area of the construction, and it is also clear these wires were insulated within the meaning of the public service act. The high voltage wires were insulated by 35 feet of air space from any foreseeable contact. It therefore cannot be construed as negligence that the Edison Company did not also add a dielectric insulator in anticipation of construction in the *466area. We would require additional facts to allow the trial court to submit the question for a test as to negligence to a trier of fact. The law does not require those maintaining power transmission lines to anticipate every possible fortuitous circumstance that might cause injurious contacts with those power lines. [Id. at 427. Emphasis added.]
In Gunn v Edison Sault Electric Co, 24 Mich App 43; 179 NW2d 680 (1970), a judgment of no cause of action in a nonjury trial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Gunn involved an action for the death of a passenger in a seaplane who chose not to use the regular approach pattern and collided with the defendant’s electrical wires. The representative of his estate argued that the electric company was negligent in failing to have the lines and poles marked either with paint or some type of reflectors. Finding no clear error in the trial court’s ruling, the Court stated:
"[T]he law is complied with when an electric or telephone company or others engaged in the transmission or use of electricity provide such a protection as will safely guard against any contingency that is reasonably to be anticipated. The extent of the duty or standard of care is measured in the terms of foreseeability of injury from the situation created. There is no duty to safeguard against occurrences that cannot be reasonably expected or contemplated. A failure to anticipate and guard against a happening which would not have arisen but for exceptional or unusual circumstances is not negligence, nor does the law require those maintaining power transmission lines to anticipate every possible fortuitous circumstance that might cause injurious contacts with those lines.” [Id. at 46-47, quoting from 26 Am Jur 2d, § 43, p 252.]
In Carr v Detroit Edison Co, 49 Mich App 332; 212 NW2d 70 (1973), the plaintiff’s decedent was *467electrocuted when the crane on which he was working contacted overhead power lines at a construction site. Citing Dees, the Court of Appeals affirmed a directed verdict in favor of the defendant:
While Edison had engaged in a program to educate people in the construction industry regarding the dangers of working in close proximity to overhead wires, it is undisputed that Edison had no knowledge a crane was to be used at the construction site on the date in question. Since the contractor failed to inform Edison of the use of equipment in close proximity to the lines, no duty on the utility’s part arose to inform the contractor or his employees of the hazard of working near overhead transmission lines, a hazard of which they were all admittedly well aware. [Carr, supra, P 340.]
Also, in Ransford v Detroit Edison Co, 124 Mich App 537; 335 NW2d 211 (1983), the plaintiff’s decedent died as a result of electrocution when the wire-controlled model airplane he was flying became entangled with the control wires of another airplane and the wires of one of the planes came into contact with an electric transmission line. The plaintiff argued that Edison was negligent in failing to warn her husband of the danger involved in contact with uninsulated power lines, in failing to insulate the lines, and-in stringing the lines only thirty-three feet above the ground. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, stating:
[T]he testimony in the instant case established that the power lines were installed 30 years prior to the accident, when the land was essentially open pasture and farmland. We hold, as a matter of law, that at the time of installation of the power *468lines there was no "likelihood or reasonable probability of human contact” with them. Clumfoot v St Clair Tunnel Co, supra, p 117. In addition, plaintiff’s proofs conclusively established that the view of the power lines was not obscured in any way. Her proofs were devoid of any evidence that Detroit Edison had notice of the wire-controlled model airplane demonstrations. In our judgment, this case involves a "fortuitous circumstance” not reasonably foreseen by Edison. See Dees v LF Largess Co, supra, p 427. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that Detroit Edison breached no duty owed to plaintiff’s decedent. [Id. at 546.]
The fortuitous circumstances that characterized these cases likewise prevail in the present situation. Throughout the many years since it was constructed in 1937, defendant has maintained the 4,800-volt overhead electric line in this same location. The lines were measured at 24 feet 4 inches (vertical distance) above the ground and 15 feet 6 inches (horizontal distance) away from the house owned by Mr. and Mrs. Osmond. The aluminum ladder involved in the accident was measured to be 27 feet in length. The Osmonds, who were friends of the decedent, both testified that they had moved to this address in 1977 and that they had never contacted defendant Consumers Power Company to complain about the transmission lines in front of the house. The record is devoid of testimony that anyone had ever called defendant concerning this line for any reason before this incident.
Plaintiff argued that defendant should have been aware that house painting was being undertaken because a Consumers Power Company employee was working on a pole near the house two days before the accident and should have noticed *469that there were pump jacks set up next to the house in preparation for the painting. However, there was no testimony that any painting was ongoing on that particular day or that any aluminum ladders were on the Osmond property or in the front yard of the Osmond home when the employee was working on the pole. Defendant could not reasonably foresee or expect the contact with its power lines that occurred two days later.
The fortuity of the circumstances is reinforced by plaintiff’s theory of the case. Mr. Osmond testified that, while he was balancing the ladder in a vertical position, Duane Schultz came to assist him and grabbed the ladder from the other side. At that instant, Osmond was aware of a bright flash. He testified that the top of the ladder had not contacted the primary wire before the flash. Plaintiff’s expert theorized that the electrical current had arced the remaining distance from the primary wire to the ladder. But even the plaintiff’s expert testified that, ordinarily, electricity from a 4,800-volt line cannot arc a distance greater than three-quarters of an inch. Plaintiff’s expert had no information, based upon a reasonable scientific certainty, that the electricity could, under the circumstances of this case, arc further.
Assuming plaintiff’s theory to be true, there was no scientific basis for concluding that the electricity jumped from the wires to the vertical ladder. Defendant had no actual knowledge that an aluminum ladder was being used in the vicinity of its power line and it certainly had no reason to anticipate that a 27-foot aluminum ladder would be placed, according to the more plausible theory, within inches of its 24-foot high overhead wires. We disagree with the majority’s implicit assumption that this accident was reasonably foreseeable.
*470II
While the majority recognizes that "[t]he degree of care required is that used by prudent persons in the industry,” it minimizes the significance of the safety standards utilized by the industry that were exceeded by the defendant three to five times. Ante, p 454. Such compliance with safety standards, although not necessarily determinative,3 is a strong factor mitigating against the imposition of a duty. See Dees, supra at 427.
In Buczkowski, supra at 101, this Court noted that although foreseeability is often the first factor to be examined in determining the existence of a duty, "other considerations may be, and usually are, more important.” Hence, the Court refused to impose a duty upon retailers of ammunition "to protect a member of the general public from the criminal act of a customer” even when the customer was intoxicated at the time of sale of the ammunition, id. at 103, in part because the Legislature "has enacted many statutes regulating the use of firearms . . . .” Id. at 106. In other words, the Court declined to impose a duty where the Legislature had refused to do so. Id. at 109.
Similarly, in the instant case, defendant not only met but exceeded by several factors the applicable governmental safety standards. Rule 1679 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Electrical Supply and Communication Lines, issued by the Michigan Public Service Commission, indicates that the acceptable horizontal clearance is three feet (for lines of 4,800 volts), or only one-fifth the actual distance Consumers Power Company installed this line away from the house (15 feet 6 *471inches). Thus, defendant installed its line at a distance from the house five times greater than the distance required by the code. Furthermore, in 1981 the National Electric Safety Code was modified with respect to the horizontal clearance requirements. That code requires that the distance should be five feet for electric lines constructed after that date, instead of three feet as provided by rule 1679. Thus, in accordance with the more recent national standard, the location of defendant’s line is three times farther from this house than is required.
Rule 1679 states that 4,800-volt lines should be 20 feet above the ground (if over "[d]riveways to residence garages”), or as defendant’s expert more precisely calculated (due to an adjustment) 21.29 feet. There is a driveway on the north side of the Osmond home, and thus that provision is applicable to this case. The 1981 version of the National Electric Safety Code also states that the vertical clearance should be 20 feet. The line in question, of course, was more than 24 feet above the ground. Even at "highway crossings,” where one can reasonably foresee large vehicles and numerous activities, the state requires a height of only 22 feet, or two feet less than the height of defendant’s line at this location. See MCL 460.554; MSA 22.154.
With respect to plaintiff’s allegation that the electric lines were not properly insulated, it should be noted that defendant’s electric line was more than 24 feet above the ground at the contact point; consequently, this case is governed by the rationale of those decisions that hold that the electric line was properly insulated as a matter of law. See Dees, supra at 427-428; Williams v Detroit Edison Co, 63 Mich App 559, 575-576; 234 NW2d 702 (1975).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth *472Circuit addressed the issue of regulatory compliance in connection with the element of foreseeability in Mosby v Southwestern Electric Power Co, 659 F2d 680 (CA 5, 1981). The decedent was electrocuted when a cb radio antenna being erected at a mobile home contacted the defendant’s overhead electric line. In reversing a jury verdict and granting the defendant’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court stated:
The litigants acknowledge that the key issue is foreseeability. In Texas the liability of an electric company for injuries resulting from contact with overhead power lines is based on the traditional concept of negligence requiring proof that the electric company could reasonably anticipate injury resulting from its conduct.
Plaintiffs have only shown that a fatal accident was within the range of possibilities. As [Houston Lighting & Power Co v Brooks, 161 Tex 32; 336 SW2d 603 (1960)] shows, foreseeability requires more. Note that we are not saying that compliance with the National Electrical Safety Code, standing alone, frees a power company from liability. As defendant correctly points out in its brief, code compliance is one of the many facts in this case negating a conclusion that swepco should have anticipated contact with its line. Here there was undisputed evidence that the line was properly designed and met the code clearance requirements even after the mobile home was placed beneath it. The hazard of which the power company was shown to be aware was only the universal danger of contact with electric lines. [Id. at 681-683.]
The imposition of a duty upon the defendant under the present circumstances eviscerates the certainty and legislative judgment codified in the state and federal safety codes. To impose liability in the present situation, where the electric com*473pany has complied with all code requirements yet is nevertheless expected to guard against the unforeseeable use of an aluminum ladder with a length that exceeds the height of the wires, is equivalent to imposing strict liability.
III
The imposition of a duty is particularly unwarranted in the instant case, given the decedent’s awareness of the danger and the fact that sufficient room existed to perform the activity that caused the injury. This Court has previously held that a plaintiff’s knowledge of the dangers presented by electrical wires, combined with a sufficient work area, were factors that relieved the utility of a duty to the plaintiff. In Koehler v Detroit Edison Co, 383 Mich 224, 227; 174 NW2d 827 (1970), the plaintiff, an ironworker, came into contact with power lines while he was riding on a cable that in turn was connected to a crane. The wires were 30 to 35 feet above ground level, and the plaintiff struck the wires as the crane swung the cable near the power lines. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant that was affirmed on appeal. The Koehler Court explained:
With regard to negligence on the part of Detroit Edison, there is no testimony in this case from which a jury could find that the operation carried on with the crane was dangerous because of Detroit Edison’s distribution line. The testimony is to the effect that there was sufficient room in which to work; that ironworkers fully understood the danger from electric wires and the importance of staying away from them; that there was no reason to expect trouble from the line or to alert Detroit Edison that a crane was to be used; that Koehler, Beard, Pankey, and others were aware of the *474existence of the line and could have requested Detroit Edison to insulate the line if they considered it necessary that such a step be taken; and that Detroit Edison was not apprised of the operation or requested to take any precautions. The mere fact that Detroit Edison knew a building was under construction near its power line and that, from time to time, mobile cranes were being brought upon the premises to be used in construction work, would not, standing alone, create a duty upon Detroit Edison to remove the charge, insulate the line, or notify the parties of a dangerous condition. We agree with the finding of the trial judge that there was no negligence on the part of Detroit Edison. [Id. at 231. See also Carr, supra.]
The aluminum ladder used by the decedent had two warning signs. The first read: "Danger, Watch for wires, This ladder conducts electricity,” and the second warning indicated: "Caution: Electrical shock hazard, Metal ladders should not be used where contact may be made with electrical circuits.”
The uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that the electrical lines were clearly visible. Both Mr. and Mrs. Osmond testified that they knew the lines were there, that the lines were clearly visible, that they were in fact electric lines, that a person could be killed or seriously injured if an aluminum ladder contacted an overhead electric line while they were touching the ladder, and that they never warned the decedent about the hazard because "[j]ust anyone with common sense knows you just don’t play around with power.”
Mr. Osmond testified that "there was no planning before the work had begun” and that neither he nor the decedent walked around to see if there were any obstacles around the house before they started painting. Both Mr. Osmond and the decedent were aware of the electric lines. Mr. Osmond *475explained that as he and the decedent were setting up the pump jacks in preparation for the painting project, the decedent stated, "Boy, those lines look awful close.” Mr. Osmond testified that he never warned Mr. Schultz about the presence of the overhead electrical wires because, "I thought he would know basic — the same thing that I did, that you weren’t supposed to touch electrical lines.”
The danger involved in the instant case was an open and obvious one. Just as the danger of electricity is common knowledge, "so it is also common knowledge that any line or wire carrying electricity is dangerous.” Genaust v Illinois Power Co, 62 Ill 2d 456, 469; 343 NE2d 465 (1976). Michigan case law recognizes the well-established rule that in product liability cases there is no duty to warn of dangers that are open and obvious. See Glittenberg v Doughboy (On Rehearing), 441 Mich 379, 393; 491 NW2d 208 (1992). Similarly, the Koehler Court recognized, in the present context, that awareness of the danger from electrical wires should, under certain circumstances, relieve the utility of the duty to warn of the dangerous condition. There is no compelling justification to aban- . don this well-reasoned precedent.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Riley, J., concurred with Griffin, J.

 In Buczkowski v McKay, 441 Mich 96, 101, n 4; 490 NW2d 330 (1992), this Court noted:
*464Dean Prosser described the several variables that consistently go to the heart of a court’s determination of duty as including: foreseeability of the harm, degree of certainty of injury, closeness of connection between the conduct and injury, moral blame attached to the conduct, policy of preventing future harm, and, finally, the burdens and consequences of imposing a duty and the resulting liability for breach. Prosser & Keeton [Torts (5th ed)], § 53, p 359, n 24.

 The question whether a duty exists is generally a question of law for the court. Smith v Allendale Mutual Ins Co, 410 Mich 685, 714; 303 NW2d 702 (1981). The Smith Court explained:
It is for the court to determine, as a matter of law, what characteristics must be present for a relationship to give rise to a duty the breach of which may result in tort liability. It is for the jury to determine whether the facts in evidence establish the elements of that relationship. Thus, the jury decides the question of duty only in the sense that it determines whether the proofs establish the elements of a relationship which the court has already concluded give rise to a duty as a matter of law. [Id. at 714-715.]

 See Owens v Allis-Chalmers Corp, 414 Mich 413, 423; 326 NW2d 372 (1982); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 288C, p 39.