Holmes v. Black River Elec. Co-op., Inc., 21138

• Decision Date: 04 February 1980
• Docket Number: No. 21138,21138
• Citation: 274 S.C. 252,262 S.E.2d 875
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Liston Billy HOLMES, Respondent, v. BLACK RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Appellant.

Page 875

262 S.E.2d 875

274 S.C. 252

Liston Billy HOLMES, Respondent, v. BLACK RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Appellant.

No. 21138.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 4, 1980.

Nash, Chappell & Wilson, and Weinberg, Warner, Brown & McDougall, Sumter, for appellant.

Joseph T. McElveen, Jr., and David W. Goldman, both of Bryan, Bahmuller, King, Goldman & McElveen, Sumter, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice:

The plaintiff-respondent, Holmes, suffered an electrical shock while fishing from a boat, as he attempted to retrieve his lure after the wind blew it over electrical transmission wires maintained by the defendant-appellant, Black River Electric Cooperative, Inc. As a result of the incident, Holmes suffered multiple severe injuries, not limited to but including and necessitating the amputation of his left hand and a part of his arm. The wires in question were strung across Canty Bay, a popular fishing cove at Santee Cooper Lake, at a height above the water estimated at three to five feet for the neutral wire and ten to twelve feet for the phase (live) wire. The line, which carried 7200 volts of electricity, had been temporarily attached to a pine tree following the breaking of a pole, and had remained so attached for at least three years. The neutral wire was attached to the pine tree by using a nylon-type ski rope. The records of the defendant do not indicate when the attachment actually occurred or when the area was last inspected. According to some of the evidence, the wires had been in disrepair for as long as ten years.

Holmes brought this action against Black River in tort to recover for his injuries, alleging negligence, recklessness, and gross negligence on its part in allowing wires transmitting electrical current to be at an unsafe height and to be improperly maintained. Black River answered the complaint, denying the allegations of negligence and recklessness, and setting up the defense of contributory negligence and contributory recklessness.

At the trial Black River's motion for a directed verdict was denied. The jury returned a verdict for Holmes in the amount of $350,000 actual damages, which the trial judge, on a motion for a new trial nisi, reduced to $265,000. Holmes agreed to accept the smaller amount. The amount of the verdict is not an issue on this appeal; Black River raises several questions for determination by this court. We affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Black River first contends that it was entitled to a directed verdict, or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that as a matter of law (1) Holmes was contributorily negligent, and (2) Black River's actions were not the proximate cause of the injuries. It is conceded, as stated in Black River's reply brief, ". . . that there is sufficient evidence in the record for inferences to be drawn that the Appellant (Black River) could have been negligent."

In considering whether the lower court was correct in denying Black River's motions, this court must view the evidence and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to Holmes. Woodward v. Todd, 270 S.C. 82, 240 S.E.2d 641 (1978).

The act of leaving highly charged, live, electrical transmission wires in an admitted state of inattention and ill repair within close proximity to a body of water where persons were known to fish regularly, was negligence as a matter of law and evidence of recklessness and wantonness. Independent of the minimum standards established by the National Electrical Safety Code, which were ignored, as a matter of common law, the wires strung as indicated hereinabove over a long period of time amounted to negligence, to the exclusion of other reasonable inferences.

In Foreman v. Atlantic Land Corp., 271 S.C. 130, 245 S.E.2d 609 (1978), we noted that the Code was helpful in determining common law negligence in the electrical industry.

The matter of proximate cause must be viewed also in the light most favorable to Holmes. As this court has held: "The touchstone of proximate cause in South Carolina is foreseeability." Young v. Tide Craft, Inc., 270 S.C. 453, 242 S.E.2d 671 (1978).

"The law is well settled that in order to establish liability it is not necessary that the person charged with negligence should have contemplated the particular event which occurred. It is sufficient that he should have foreseen that his negligence would probably cause injury to something or someone. . . ." McQuillen v. Dobbs, 262 S.C. 386, 204 S.E.2d 732, 735 (1974).

The evidence is easily susceptible of the inference that Black River should have foreseen that its negligence in maintaining the power transmission line would probably cause injury to some person. The facts and circumstances give rise to the reasonable inference that the injuries would not have occurred if Black River had maintained its line properly. Accordingly, there was created a question proper for determination by the jury.

On the issue of contributory negligence alleged against Holmes, we think that there was made a question of fact for determination by the jury. He testified that he was of the opinion that the line was dead and that he never came into direct contact with either of the wires.

We find no error on the part of the judge in denying the motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Black River submits that pictures of Holmes' injured and amputated arm should not have been admitted in evidence because they may have aroused the sympathy of the jury to its prejudice. It is argued that the injuries depicted by the photographs were hideous, grotesque, and grossly unfair. The admission or exclusion of evidence at trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the judge. Grand Strand Construction Co., Inc. v. Graves, 269 S.C. 594, 239 S.E.2d 81 (1977). There is no contention that the pictures do not accurately reflect Holmes and his injuries at the time the photographs were taken. There can be no doubt but that they prejudiced the defendant's case in the sense that they were detrimental, but they showed a condition which Holmes was entitled to either describe to the jury in words or by pictures, or a combination of the two. This demonstrative evidence aided the jury in its evaluation of the injuries and pain suffered. It cannot be said that they were introduced in evidence for...