Mississippi Power Co. v. Jones
| Decision Date | 28 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 50793,50793 |
| Citation | 369 So.2d 1381 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Robert L. JONES. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Williams, Glover & Walton, David Williams, Meridian, for appellant.
Sandusky & Bailey, David Stephenson, Lawrence W. Rabb, Eppes & Shannon, J. R. Shannon, Meridian, for appellees.
EN BANC.
SUGG, Justice, for the Court:
This case involves an appeal by Mississippi Power Company from a judgment in favor of Robert L. Jones against it for $5,000 actual damages and $15,000 punitive damages. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company cross-appealed from the judgment which limited its subrogation rights to the actual damages assessed by the jury, contending it is entitled to share in the award of punitive damages as a compensation carrier which had paid Workmen's Compensation benefits to Jones.
Jones commenced a third party action against MPC under section 71-3-71 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972). Jones charged in his declaration that MPC was guilty of reckless, willful, wanton and unlawful acts constituting negligence which proximately and directly resulted in the injuries suffered by him. He predicated his case on three theories of negligence; (1) the breach by MPC of its common law duty to utilize the high standard of care commensurate with the dangerous and hazardous nature of electricity, (2) the willful violation of an ordinance of the City of Meridian which prohibited energizing an electrical system until after the city electrical engineer had made a final inspection of the system and issued his written certificate of approval, and (3) MPC did not notify Jones' employer that it had energized the electrical Jones was employed by Chester Chatham, an electrical contractor who was under contract with Peavey Electronics, Inc. to install electric wiring in a building owned by Peavey. Peavey was in the process of constructing a new building which was divided into four sections. Three sections consisted of new construction and the fourth section was an existing structure which was to be renovated.
system in the fourth section of the Peavey building.
MPC installed a large electrical transformer on Peavey's property which remained the property of MPC. Electric current was to be transmitted to all four sections of the Peavey building through the transformer. Chatham installed the wiring between the MPC transformer and the Peavey building. Each section of the building was energized as the electrical work in that section was completed with MPC making the necessary connection at its transformer.
Before August 15, 1974, the city electrical inspector had approved the connection of electrical service to three sections of the building and those sections had been energized. On Thursday, August 15, 1974 as the wiring of the fourth section was nearing completion, Chatham requested MPC to disconnect the temporary electric service that had been serving the fourth section of the building during the renovation. Chatham also requested the city electrical inspector to make his inspection of the fourth section. The electrical inspector came to the premises on August 15, presumably to make an inspection of the fourth section; however, the inspector was not called as a witness to show that he completed his inspection and authorized energizing the electrical system in the fourth section. The only proof offered by MPC relating to its authorization to energize the system was by George East, Jr., Division Engineer for MPC. East testified that a memorandum of telephone calls was kept by Robert Davis, a staff assistant of MPC, who was not called as a witness. The memo contained the following entry: "M-26 Peavy's O.K. City 11:00."
When the memo was offered for identification only, plaintiff's attorney objected on the grounds that MPC was trying to show a custom and that the memo had not been furnished in response to a request for a production of documents.
The court questioned the witness East and after determining that Davis made the entries on the memo, overruled the objection.
Plaintiff's attorney questioned East about the memo and elicited from the witness the fact that the memo was the sole authorization MPC obtained before it energized the system. The witness was then asked to give his interpretation of the portion of the memo quoted above. The witness answered:
The city electrical engineer called Mr. Davis and told him or his office called Mr. Davis and told him it was okay to energize that particular service.
When the memo which had been previously offered for identification was later offered in evidence, plaintiff did not object. Although the above evidence that MPC had received oral approval from the city electrical engineer to energize the electrical system is rather weak, in view of the fact that the explanation of the memo was brought out by the plaintiff himself and no objection was made to the introduction of the memo, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to show that MPC obtained oral approval to energize the system.
Following the telephone call on August 15, indicated in the memo, MPC energized the system sometime during the afternoon of August 16, but did not notify Chatham that it had energized the system.
Chatham testified that, on Friday afternoon, August 16, 1974, Jones was working on the switch box which had been installed. The switch box had been grounded but the cables to the box had not been secured. After Jones left work Chatham pulled the cables through the conduit and attempted to push some of the wires a little further up into the box. Chatham then placed a lock on the box to prevent theft of the copper wire. He did not remember the exact time but stated that it was dusk dark when he The following questions and answers are Chatham's version of what happened when Jones unlocked the box.
locked the switch box. Chatham also testified that it would not have been safe for him to push the wire into the box if the system had been energized because it would have caused conductors to come in contact with the ground, thus damaging some of the equipment. Chatham returned Monday morning about 7:30 and gave the key to the lock on the switch box to Billy Joe Boyette who, in turn, gave it to Jones. Chatham did not know that the electrical system had been energized.
A. He removed the lock from the box, the box being so designed it cannot be opened without the door cannot be opened without the switch being in an open position. He reached up and took hold of the switch to open the switch. And in so doing, one of the conductors, maybe one or more, fell against the box. There was a violent reaction of arcing. The box began to burn as if it were being burned with a torch of some sort. The door to the box was never opened. It remained closed and there was some splattering of molten metal.
Q. Molten metal was splattered?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you notice whether any got on Mr. Jones' glasses?
A. It did.
Q. What happened to Mr. Jones after that? Did it make a loud noise?
A. Indeed, it did.
Q. And what happened to Mr. Jones?
A. Mr. Jones, of course, was startled and he jumped backwards and he tripped, and he fell and struck his elbow on the floor.
Ronnie Poythress testified that he was employed by Peavey and during the late afternoon of August 16, 1974, saw a MPC truck with an arm and a bucket come to the pole where the transformer was located. He did not report what he had seen to anyone. On Monday morning, August 19, the witness became aware that something had happened to the electrical system because when he was in the west section of the building he saw sparks coming from the girders and shortly thereafter the electricians working in the building came down the aisle exiting the building.
Jones was carried to a hospital, but never lost consciousness. About 9:00 a. m. he told Chatham he felt all right but the elbow on which he fell hurt a little. He was kept in the hospital for observation and released the next day. He returned to work on Wednesday and continued to perform the same type work he was doing before the accident. Jones testified he developed a chronic neck condition which required him to give up his job as a union electrician which required travel. He obtained employment with a non-union electrical contractor so he could remain at home in order to use traction at night and be assigned work which would accommodate his neck condition.
WAS THE NEGLIGENCE OF MPC A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF JONES' INJURY?
An ordinance of the City of Meridian setting the standard of minimum requirements for electrical installations provides in part:
No current of electricity shall be turned on to any wiring system until after the electrical inspector shall have made final inspection of all wiring and fixtures and shall have issued his written certificate of approval.
MPC concedes that a written permit was not issued by the city's electrical inspector authorizing it to energize the system. However, it argues that because it had oral approval of the city electrical inspector to energize the system, failure to obtain a written certificate was, at most, a technical violation of the ordinance, and, in any event, was not the proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiff.
We do not agree. At the time MPC energized the electrical system, the installation of the electrical system was not complete. When it energized the system before it was complete, the act of energizing the system was the sole and proximate cause of
the injury to Jones; therefore, we hold that the negligence of MPC proximately caused the injury to Jones and supports an award for damages.
WAS AN AWARD OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES WARRANTED BY THE EVIDENCE?
MPC argues that even if it was guilty of negligence, the evidence does not justify an award of punitive damages.
We have numerous cases setting forth the requirements for awarding punitive damages annotated in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Wade
...Bailey v. Graves, 411 Mich. 510, 309 N.W.2d 166 (1981); Huebsch v. Larson, 291 Minn. 361, 191 N.W.2d 433 (1971); Mississippi Power Co. v. Jones, 369 So.2d 1381 (Miss.1979); Stenson v. Laclede Gas Co., 553 S.W.2d 309 (Mo.App.1977); Butcher v. Petranek, 181 Mont. 358, 593 P.2d 743 (1979); Ber......
-
Wells v. Smith
...Daiss v. Woodbury, 163 Ga.App. 88, 293 S.E.2d 876 (1982); Lynn v. Taylor, 7 Kan.App.2d 369, 642 P.2d 131 (1982); Mississippi Power Co. v. Jones, 369 So.2d 1381 (Miss.1979); Weldon v. Town Properties, Inc., 633 S.W.2d 196 (Mo.App.1982); City of Reno v. Silver State Flying Service, Inc., 84 N......
-
Illinois Central R. Co. v. Fordice
...However, this court is compelled to disagree. Mississippi law on statutory construction is well settled. Mississippi Power Co. v. Jones, 369 So.2d 1381, 1388 (Miss. 1979). The first determination to be made is whether a statute is ambiguous. Id. If the court finds the statute unambiguous, t......
-
Evans v. State
...Pinkton v. State, 481 So.2d 306 (Miss. 1985); MISS CAL 204, Ltd. v. Upchurch, 465 So.2d 326 (Miss.1985); Mississippi Power Company v. Jones, 369 So.2d 1381 (Miss.1979). Whether the statute is ambiguous, or not, the ultimate goal of this Court in interpreting a statute is to discern and give......