Court Opinion

ID: 9446761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:17:43.253287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:46.161270
License: Public Domain

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that plaintiff was an invitee of the defendant. Plaintiff was an employee of Pittsburgh, an independent contractor, engaged to do the construction work here involved. It is stipulated that Pittsburgh’s status was that of an independent contractor, and that Pittsburgh under its contract “shall furnish all labor and materials, tools, supervision and methods as outlined in the specifications.” Defendant had no supervisory power over the plaintiff, but had only the right to see that the end product of Pittsburgh’s work conformed to the specifications. It is apparent that plaintiff was not an employee of defendant. Thus, defendant was under no legal obligation to furnish the plaintiff with a safe place to work. No claim is made that the defendant did anything to create an unsafe condition upon its premises during the period the v/ork project was being carried out. The electrical equipment in the enclosed area, with respect to being energized and in all other respects, was the same at the time of the accident as it was when the project was commenced. Under such circumstances, as the majority properly states, defendant’s legal obligation towards Pittsburgh and plaintiff, as Pittsburgh’s employee, is that announced in the Gowing and Atherton cases, cited and quoted by the majority. Defendant’s duty to plaintiff as an invitee was to warn the plaintiff or his employer of any hidden danger of which the defendant knew or in the exercise *124of ordinary care should have known, and which was not known, or in the exercise of ordinary care could not have been known, to the contractor or the injured employee.
The plaintiff was injured by a wire leading into a transformer. There is serious doubt whether any hidden danger situation is presented. Plaintiff concedes that the employees at the time the project was commenced discussed among themselves the wisdom of working in the enclosed electrical area. Plaintiff testified that he was “familiar with transformers, generators and electrical equipment to the extent that anyone who comes any-wheres near them would be familiar with them,” and that “it would be a safe assumption on the part of anyone entering an enclosed area of this nature, that some of the transformers might be energized.” He also admitted that transformers are dangerous, primarily the wiring above the transformer.
The injury-inflicting wire led into what are described in the majority opinion as “emergency transformers.” At the time of the accident neither the plaintiff nor 'his employer knew that the transformers were emergency transformers. Plaintiff so testified. So did Pittsburgh’s foreman.
If any hidden danger existed as to which defendant was required to give warning, the defendant fully complied with such duty. The electrical area, in which the transformers were located, was enclosed by a fence upon which signs were erected, reading “Danger 13,200 Volts.” Similar signs were posted within the enclosed area, one within a few feet of the immediate scene of the accident. Plaintiff admitted seeing such signs. It is likewise established beyond dispute that defendant’s foreman orally advised Pittsburgh’s foreman that the electrical equipment in the fenced area was “hot,” and that defendant’s powerhouse engineer gave a similar warning. Such warning was broad and by its terms applied to all of the electrical equipment in the enclosure, of which the transformer and the lead-in wire were a part.
There is substantial evidence by Pittsburgh’s foreman that he conveyed the warning information to its employees. Plaintiff testified in substance that he believed his foreman’s statement that he gave such warning, but plaintiff states that he did not hear it given. To the extent that any oral warning was required, defendant met its obligation by warning Pittsburgh’s foreman. It was Pittsburgh’s duty to protect its workmen.
The majority attaches considerable significance to bus bar warnings. The bus bars were on other transformers located at some distance from the scene of the accident. It is true that the defendant’s employees did in a few instances give specific warning as to the bus bars at a time when Pittsburgh’s employees were working in the immediate vicinity of the bus bars. Plaintiff admits hearing the bus bar warning, but states: “The exact location of that bus bar I don’t know. If I saw a bus bar I would recognize it immediately and I would know then where it was, but I never actually saw the bus bar.” It is difficult to see how plaintiff could have been misled by the bus bar warnings. The bus bar warnings were not inconsistent with and did not detract from the broad overall warning conveyed by the enclosing fence, the signs, and the oral warnings.
Plaintiff also urges that he was misled by the circumstance that the lead-in wire causing the accident was insulated. The testimony is that the insulation afforded no protection on a wire of this voltage, and there is also testimony that lead-in wires of this type are usually bare. Defendant’s warnings were not limited to bare wire, but covered the hazards of all electrical equipment in the fenced area. Plaintiff’s own testimony shows that he knows that wires above transformers are particularly dangerous. The record does not fairly warrant any inference that the plaintiff relied in any way upon the fact that the lead-in wire *125was insulated. It is apparent that plaintiff did not learn until after the accident that the lead-in wire which caused his injury was insulated. One of plaintiff’s specifications of negligence is, “In failing to cause the wires to which plaintiff was exposed, if live, to be properly and adequately insulated.”
The plaintiff has suffered serious injuries in an unfortunate accident. In my opinion he has wholly failed to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant can not be charged with any negligence that might have existed on the part of plaintiff’s employer. The motion for a directed verdict should have been sustained. I would reverse.