Court Opinion

ID: 9743296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:30:20.660541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:40.414585
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. This case comes to us upon the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Illinois Power. The majority states that “[i]t is not a breach of duty to supply electricity to a community knowing that, over time, electrocution is likely.” 325 Ill. App. 3d at 610.1 agree. The majority further notes that “ ‘[ejconomic realities make unrealistic the possibility that utility companies might insulate all of their power fines, which in many instances amount to thousands of miles.’ ” 325 Ill. App. 3d at 610, quoting Watkins, 165 Ill. App. 3d at 499, 519 N.E.2d at 14. I also agree. However, when a utility company undertakes the duty to insulate its power fines, then it must do so in a nonnegligent manner. Here, Illinois Power denies that the fines were insulated. Plaintiff, however, maintains that the fines were insulated. In support of her position, plaintiff presented an affidavit by an electrical engineer who examined the power fines and found that the fines were covered by a degraded insulating material. Summary judgment is appropriate only where “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” 735 ILCS 5/2 — 1005(c) (West 1998). A question of fact remains as to whether Illinois Power in fact insulated the power fines and, thereby, assumed the duty to maintain those insulated fines. Therefore, summary judgment is not proper. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.