Court Opinion

ID: 9639224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:08:23.331545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:14.503409
License: Public Domain

RONNIE L. WHITE, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. “In the absence of a particular relationship recognized by law to create a duty, the concept of foreseeability is paramount in determining whether a duty exists.”1 For purposes of determining whether a duty exists, this Court has defined foreseeability as the presence of some probability or likelihood of harm sufficiently serious that ordinary persons would take precautions to avoid it.2
The risks to human life when engaging in the inherently dangerous activity of transmitting electrical power are readily discernable. Indeed, this Court has already held that when a utility company has actual notice that any of its wires have become dangerous, that the company must exercise the highest degree of care and has a duty to repair any break in the line or shut off the electricity within a few short minutes.3
UE’s power lines run adjacent to the roadway and it is an unquestionably foreseeable risk that a motor vehicle accident *710may down a utility pole and that the vehicle’s occupants and first-responders to the accident would be confronted with the risk of electrical injury. It is equally foreseeable that first-responders, when faced with downed power lines in the zone of injury, would delay attending to the victims until informed of the status of the lines. It is also foreseeable that this delayed treatment could subject the victims to further injury or death. By definition, UE had a duty to inform.
The legal file reveals that the first-responders to Ms. Hoffman’s accident stood at bay between 35 and 47 minutes of their arrival, waiting for UE personnel to attend to a dead power line. UE knew the line was not conducting electricity two minutes prior to the arrival of the first-responders. UE knew that the line could be re-energized under certain circumstances, extremely rare circumstances by their own admission.4 UE elected to retain the information it exclusively possessed rendering the first-responders powerless to make an informed decision on intervening.
Between the parties’ pleadings there remained a total of 17 material facts in dispute in relation to Ms. Hoffman’s claim. Of particular importance was testimony from one of the paramedics who stated he would have extricated Tiffany from the vehicle and provided medical treatment had UE shared its information. In the presence of a recognized duty to inform, these disputed material facts supporting a theory of unnecessary delay in treatment would allow the plaintiff to survive summary judgment. The burden on UE to provide this information is small and if a human life can be saved, the societal benefit is great. There certainly is no greater societal interest worthy of protection other than the preservation of human life.
Even if the utility company could expedite life-sustaining treatment by providing this information in but one out of one hundred accidents, given that the benefit is preserving human life, it seems unconscionable not to recognize such a simple duty to disclose this information. Recognizing the existence of this duty does not open the floodgates to frivolous litigation. A plaintiff in any case is still required to meet the significant legal burdens of proving the duty was breached, that specific injury resulted and that the breach of the duty directly and proximately caused those defined injuries.
The principal opinion responds by stressing that regulations and industry standards serve as legal recognition of the interest of preserving human life, and if UE disclosed the line status information that would somehow put more fives at risk. Contrary to the principal opinion’s conclusions, recognizing this duty does not place any additional duties on the first-responders or require UE, or any other utility, to place any additional people at risk. The duty to inform is simply that, a duty to inform. The first-responders once armed with line status information can make an informed decision on whether to intervene. It is the sharing of the fine status information, knowing if the fine is safe to approach or not, that protects other individuals from harm. It is the concealment of this information that puts additional people at risk.
Ironically, the UE employee dispatched to the accident scene disregarded the policies, standards and regulations the principal opinion touts, and used a fiberglass pole obtained from the first-responders to move the downed fine from the vehicle. At deposition, this employee stated that the fine was de-energized and that he *711doubted anyone would have been injured had they touched the vehicle. Apparently, this UE employee was confident that the first-responder’s equipment was all that was necessary to remove the line from the vehicle.
Today, the majority opinion holds that utility companies have no legal duty to provide line status information to first-responders during a time of life-threatening emergency. While the majority may have discharged UE from any legal obligation, perhaps the company will recognize its own moral obligation to protect the sanctity of human life. It must have been difficult for the first-responders to watch the life slowly drain from Tiffany Hoffman not knowing if they made a reasoned decision to withhold treatment. I would reverse the trial court’s order granting summary judgement.

. Lopez v. Three Rivers Electric Cooperative, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151, 156 (Mo. banc 2000).

. Id.

. Grattan v. Union Elec. Co., 151 S.W.3d 59, 64 (Mo. banc 2004).

. UE admitted it would require a second car accident at the same location, a lightning strike, or the activation of an unknown backup generator for the line to re-energize.