Washington v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1990 · Torts

TortsNegligencePower line accidentsUnreasonable risk of harmnegligenceutility companypower lineelectrocution

Facts

John Washington, Sr. lived on a lot across whose backyard LP&L maintained a clearly visible, uninsulated 8000-volt distribution line about 21.5 feet above ground. Washington had installed a CB antenna in the back corner of his yard in a location designed to be as far from the line as possible, and the antenna could ordinarily be raised or lowered only in a safe direction parallel to the line. In 1980, Washington and his son accidentally touched the same power line with the antenna while trying to move it, and afterward Washington expressed that the incident could have killed him and acted very cautiously around the line. In 1985, after the antenna had been lowered and laid safely near the fence, Washington for no apparent reason lifted it upright and moved it near the line, was electrocuted, and was later found with the antenna tip within a foot of the wire.

Issue

Whether LP&L was negligent for failing to take additional precautions such as insulating, burying, or relocating its power line where the decedent, despite prior knowledge of the danger, deliberately moved his antenna into dangerous proximity to the line. Also, whether LP&L's serviceman was negligent in failing to discover Washington after responding to an outage complaint.

Rule

When a power company knew or should have known of the possibility of an accident, the remaining negligence question is whether the possibility of injury constituted an unreasonable risk of harm. In power line cases, that duty analysis depends on three variables: (1) the possibility that the electricity will escape, (2) the gravity of the resulting injury if it does, and (3) the burden of taking adequate precautions that would avert the accident; when the product of probability and gravity exceeds the burden of precautions, the risk is unreasonable and failure to take precautions is negligence.

🔒

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 Baton Rouge, Marcus Landry kept a 55-foot ham-radio mast in the rear corner of his lot, well away from a visible overhead distribution line owned by Pelican Valley Electric. Ten years earlier, Marcus had received a minor shock when he mishandled the mast near the line, afterward repeatedly told neighbors the line was deadly, and thereafter always stored and lowered the mast in a safe direction until one afternoon he unexpectedly carried it upright toward the line and was electrocuted.

Marcus's estate sues Pelican Valley Electric for failing to insulate, bury, or unusually elevate the line. Which is the strongest argument that the utility was not negligent under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority's rule asks whether the risk was unreasonable by balancing the possibility of contact, the gravity of injury, and the burden of adequate precautions. Even though the harm from electricity is severe, no breach exists where the chance of contact was very small because the victim knew the precise danger and had behaved cautiously for years, and the only effective measures were costly redesign steps such as insulation, burial, or abnormal elevation. (Derived from Washington v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (n.d.).)