Court Opinion

ID: 9625588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:45:15.134616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:11.377136
License: Public Domain

HERNANDEZ, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. In my opinion only one inference may be drawn from the following facts, all of which come from plaintiff’s own lips at the time he was deposed. Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law when he climbed the pole without first looking to see if the “primary line” was or was not disconnected: (1) plaintiff worked as an electrician’s helper for approximately one year; (2) his work during that period of time was mainly to assist in “hooking up oilwells” for electrical service; (3) he had installed “secondary lines” to oilwells at various locations; (4) included in the equipment carried in the truck on the day of the accident were insulated gloves and a “hot line stick” that could extend to a length of about 30 feet; (5) he noticed that the “cutouts” were disconnected and therefore knew that the “secondary line” would be dead; (6) he knew that the “primary line” carried high voltage and how to disconnect it with the “hotline stick”; (7) he did not look to see if the “primary line” was not disconnected; (8) he knew that if the “primary line” was not disconnected the “risers” would be “hot”; and (9) he was not wearing the insulated gloves at the time of the accident. The doctrine of contributory negligence is founded upon the principle that an individual is never relieved from the duty of exercising reasonable care for his own safety: That is to say he cannot thrust all of the responsibility for his safety upon others. This is precisely what plaintiff did when he climbed that pole without first looking to see if the “primary line” was or was not disconnected. See Boyce v. Brewington, 49 N.M. 107, 158 P.Zd 124 (1945); Wood v. Southwestern Public Service Company, supra.