Bernier v. Boston Edison Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1980 · Torts

TortsNegligenceCausationProducts liabilityDamagesPrejudgment intereststreet-light poleforeseeable collision

Facts

Edison owned or maintained a reinforced-concrete No. 6 street-light pole in a busy shopping area of Lexington Center and had substantial responsibility for its design, specifications, maintenance, replacement, and use. After a minor collision with another car, Ramsdell lost control, drove onto the sidewalk, struck objects along the way, then struck the Edison pole, which fell and injured Bernier; Kasputys was found near the pole with skull injuries containing metal and wire. Plaintiffs claimed Edison negligently designed and maintained the pole because it lacked adequate impact resistance against foreseeable vehicular collisions. Their expert testified the pole would topple when struck by a normal Buick traveling as little as six miles per hour and that relatively minor, feasible design changes could have materially improved its resistance.

Issue

Was there sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Edison was negligent in the design and maintenance of the pole and that this negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' injuries despite Ramsdell's negligence? Also, did the trial court err in refusing Edison’s requested instructions and in computing prejudgment interest against Edison from the commencement of Kasputys's action rather than from the date Edison was added as a defendant?

Rule

A party that designs or controls a product must anticipate the environment in which it will be used and design against reasonably foreseeable risks in that setting, including foreseeable collisions. Negligence may be found when the product's design creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury, feasible safer alternatives were available, and the defendant failed to take reasonable precautions. In causation, another actor's negligence does not relieve the defendant where that negligence is among the foreseeable mishaps the design should accommodate; liability remains if the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Under G.L. c. 231, § 6B, interest runs from the commencement of the action even as to a transaction-related defendant added later in that action.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Providence, Harbor Grid Lighting uses its own engineers to set specifications for decorative sidewalk light columns, approves manufacturers' detailed plans, keeps the columns in its inventory, and sends repair crews to replace damaged units without consulting the city. The city decides where the columns should go, but Harbor Grid requires they be placed 18 inches from the curb. After a car jumps the curb and a column collapses onto a pedestrian, Harbor Grid argues it cannot be liable because the city selected the location.

Which is the strongest argument that Harbor Grid owed a duty regarding the column's design and continued use?

Explanation. The majority opinion focused first on whether the defendant was responsible for the design and use of the instrumentality. A defendant may owe the relevant duty when it codesigned the product, approved specifications, maintained it, replaced it from its own inventory, and substantially controlled its continued use, even if another entity selected the general location. The duty is tied to substantial design/control responsibility, not exclusive land ownership or personal manufacture.