First Elec. Co-op. Corp. v. Pinson
| Decision Date | 22 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-161,82-161 |
| Parties | FIRST ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Leon Carroll PINSON and Russell Wilhite, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Friday, Eldredge & Clark by William H. Sutton, Little Rock, for appellant.
H. David Blair, Batesville, for Wilhite.
Highsmith, Gregg, Hart & Farris by Phillip B. Farris, Batesville, for appellees.
This is a tort action from the Circuit Court of Independence County, Arkansas, wherein appellant was found liable to the estate and heirs of three young men who were electrocuted when a boom on a vehicle contacted an overhead power line. The appellant argues six points for reversal. We reach only the first point because we find no evidence of negligence sufficient to support the verdicts. Therefore, we reverse and dismiss the cases.
On July 4, 1980, Russ Wilhite, d/b/a Art Sign Company, sent his son, Lew Wilhite, to erect a sign at Homer's Bait Shop. Before arriving at the site where the sign was to be erected Lew picked up his friends, Ricky and David Pinson. The pole which was to support the sign was transported to the scene on a truck driven by Lew Wilhite. The truck had a bed-mounted boom with a connected cable used in raising or lowering materials. The evidence indicates that Lew Wilhite was on the back of the truck operating the boom and the two Pinson boys were on the ground when the boom came in contact with overhead power lines, owned and operated by the appellant. When the boom contacted the power line, it served as a conductor. The electricity flowed through the boom and into the bodies of the Pinson boys, who were alongside the truck apparently holding the pole which was to be erected on the site.
Wilhite, upon discovering that electricity was flowing through the boom into the bodies of his friends, commenced yelling and jumped off of the bed of the truck. He attempted to enter the truck, but upon touching the door of the truck he, too, became a conduit for the electricity. It is obvious that Wilhite intended to drive the truck away from the power lines but was unable to do so. The Pinson boys and Wilhite were all electrocuted on the spot.
The parents of each of these young men, all of whom were minors, filed suit for damages. The Pinsons originally sued Wilhite who filed a third complaint against First Electric Cooperative Corporation, the appellant. Subsequently, the Pinsons joined in the complaint against the appellant. The claims against Wilhite were settled prior to trial. The two cases against appellant were consolidated. The jury returned verdicts against the appellant in favor of each of the plaintiffs' heirs and estates: in the amount of $120,000 for Lew Wilhite's heirs and estate; $101,000 for Ricky Pinson's heirs and estate; and, $101,000 for David Pinson's heirs and estate.
The only evidence of negligence presented against the appellant was the failure to set a reclosure on the power line at 140 amps instead of the 200 amps which was used at the time of the occurrence. So far as the record is concerned, the appellant was not alleged to be negligent in any other respect. The evidence indicates that a reclosure works in a similar manner as how an average person considers a circuit breaker to work. If the fault or drag had reached 200 amps, the reclosure would have opened within one second of such contact. This would cut off the electricity flowing at that particular point. It would cut off for one third of a second, then come back on and stay on, or reclosed, 10 seconds before tripping again. It would then remain off for 15 seconds and come back on for 10 seconds. After tripping a third time it would remain locked out until it was physically reconnected at the power station. There is some dispute as to whether or not the pole the boys were holding was touching the ground. If it were, it would have created enough "fault" on the line to cause the reclosures to cut off the electricity for a fraction of a second. There is no dispute that Lew Wilhite was on the back of the truck, where he was insulated from the electricity, for more than a second after the boom contacted the power line. The electricity caused the truck to become so charged that flames were reaching from the truck to the ground which caused the tires on the vehicle to catch fire and blow out. When this occurred, the rims on the truck came in contact with the ground and at that time the boom separated from the power line to which it had been attracted.
The appellees contend that it was the duty of the appellant to keep the reclosure on the lowest possible setting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. State
...Conjecture and speculation, however plausible, can not be permitted to supply the place of proof. First Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Pinson, 277 Ark. 424, 642 S.W.2d 301 (1982); Kapp v. Sullivan Chevrolet Company, 234 Ark. 395, 353 S.W.2d 5 (1962); Russell v. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co., 113 Ar......
-
Howard v. State
...Conjecture and speculation, however plausible, can not be permitted to supply the place of proof. First Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Pinson, 277 Ark. 424, 642 S.W.2d 301 (1982); Kapp v. Sullivan Chevrolet Company, 234 Ark. 395, 353 S.W.2d 5 (1962); Russell v. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co., 113 Ar......
-
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Gill
...on the condition of the cord or Clark's speculation. A jury verdict may not be based on speculation. First Elec. Coop. Corp. v. Pinson, 277 Ark. 424, 642 S.W.2d 301 (1982). Nonetheless, the majority buys into this rank speculation stating that Clark "went on to testify as an expert witness ......
-
Ethyl Corp. v. Johnson
...negligence in this state. Benson v. Shuler Drilling Co., Inc., 316 Ark. 101, 871 S.W.2d 552 (1994); First Electric Coop. Corp. v. Pinson, 277 Ark. 424, 642 S.W.2d 301 (1982); Dollins v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 252 Ark. 13, 477 S.W.2d 179 (1972). "Conduct becomes negligent only as it giv......