Torres v. Pacific Power and Light

JurisdictionOregon
PartiesGlen TORRES, Appellant, v. PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT, a foreign corporation, Respondent. L83-2014; CA A35226.
Citation734 P.2d 364,84 Or.App. 412
CourtOregon Court of Appeals
Decision Date08 May 1987

Robert J. Guarrasi, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Malagon & Associates, Eugene.

William G. Wheatley, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Jaqua, Wheatley, Gallagher & Holland, P.C., Eugene.

Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and ROSSMAN * and DEITS, JJ., Judges.

DEITS, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's denial of his motions for directed verdict and to dismiss defendant's first affirmative defense of contributory negligence. We affirm.

Plaintiff's employer, Quality Fence Company (Quality), entered into a contract with defendant Pacific Power and Light (PP & L) to install a chain link fence around one of PP & L's substations. The installation work was done by plaintiff and two other Quality employes on September 8, 1981. The resident operator of the substation, a PP & L employe, met the crew when it arrived and acted as a "safety watcher" throughout the installation as required by Oregon's Occupational Safety and Health Code. 1 In the course of lifting a six-foot long metal tension rod overhead while attempting to thread it through a standing section of fence, plaintiff touched the rod to an energized bus bar that was approximately four feet over his head, and he was seriously injured by electric shock. At the time of the injury, the safety watcher was standing within three feet of plaintiff but did not see the injury occur because he had turned away from plaintiff just prior to the injury.

Plaintiff filed this action against PP & L. 2 The specific allegation of negligence relevant to this appeal states:

"Defendant, by and through its employees, representatives and agents was negligent in * * *:

" * * *

"5. Failing to keep constant watch over Plaintiff while he was working in an area where motions or movements would violate specified clearances."

Plaintiff argues that defendant was negligent as a matter of law, because defendant's employe failed to comply with applicable safety rules, which require a safety watcher to maintain "constant watch" over persons under his observation. The pertinent rules provide:

"437-84-029 A qualified safety watcher shall be provided whenever workers or equipment are required to perform work in areas where inadvertent motions or movements would violate specified clearances. The safety watcher's sole duty is to keep constant watch over persons under his observation and to warn them of danger."

"437-84-033 The foreman may act as the safety watcher providing his other duties do not interfere. Should the foreman, for any reason, find his attention distracted or leave the immediate vicinity, he shall either designate another qualified person as the safety watcher or order the work stopped."

At trial, the safety watcher was unable to explain why he had turned away, although he remembered that something had diverted his attention. At several points during the trial, plaintiff's attorney moved for a directed verdict on the basis that defendant was negligent as a matter of law, because plaintiff had proven a violation of the administrative rules and PP & L had failed to offer any evidence rebutting the presumption of negligence. The court denied the motions and submitted the case to the jury, which absolved PP & L of any liability. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for him.

Under the doctrine of negligence per se, the violation of a statute or rule raises a rebuttable presumption of negligence if the violation causes an injury to a member of the class of persons meant to be protected and the injury is of a type which the statute or rule was enacted to prevent. Resser v. Boise-Cascade Corp., 284 Or. 385, 587 P.2d 80 (1978); Newport v. Moran, 80 Or.App. 71, 721 P.2d 465, rev. den. 302 Or. 35, 726 P.2d 934 (1986). Once a violation is proven, the burden shifts to the person who violated the statute or rule to prove that he acted reasonably under the circumstances. Resser v. Boise-Cascade Corp., supra; Reynolds v. Tyler, 65 Or.App. 173, 670 P.2d 223 (1983). If the action was reasonable, the violator's conduct can be found non-negligent despite the violation.

We conclude that plaintiff was a member of the protected class and suffered the type of injury which the rules were intended to protect against. The remaining issues are whether PP & L violated the rules and, if it did, whether there was evidence from which a jury could find it acted reasonably under the circumstances.

When reviewing the propriety of a trial court's ruling on a motion for directed verdict, we view the evidence, including inferences which can reasonably be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Brown v. J.C. Penney Co., 297 Or. 695, 688 P.2d 811 (1984); Schlosser v. Clackamas Water District, 60 Or.App. 617, 655 P.2d 194 (1982). If the motion was denied and the moving party lost at trial, the denial will not be set aside unless there was no evidence from which the jury could have found the necessary facts. Or. Const, Art VII (amended), § 3; Brown v. J.C. Penney Co., supra.

Whether the rules were violated depends to a large extent on the interpretation of the term "constant watch." Although we generally defer to an agency's interpretation of terms used in agency rules so long as the interpretation is within the ambit of the authorizing statute, in this case the agency has not provided any further definition of the term. It is our conclusion that, when viewed in light of the purposes of the rules, "constant watch" means a continuous and uninterrupted watch.

The other rule which is pertinent, OAR 437-84-033, concerns foremen who act as safety watchers. It provides that, when a foreman who is acting as a safety watcher is distracted or must leave the vicinity to attend to his other duties, he must order the work stopped until he can once again give his constant attention or designate a qualified substitute to act as safety watcher. A foreman who fails to stop the work or designate a substitute safety watcher would violate the regulation by failing to keep "constant watch." It logically follows that a non-foreman safety watcher who finds his attention distracted is not keeping a "constant watch."

In addition, the purpose of the rule requiring a safety watcher is to prevent severe or fatal injuries from electric shock. Safety watchers are only required in limited circumstances when specified clearances might be violated. See OAR 437-84-409 through OAR 437-84-476. Given the probable severity of injury that the rules are intended to prevent, the narrow range of circumstances in which a safety watcher is required and the strict nature of the duty, we believe that their purposes would be frustrated by a less demanding definition.

Applying our interpretation to this case, the safety watcher's conduct violated the rules as a matter of law, because he did not keep a continuous and uninterrupted watch. The crucial inquiry then becomes whether there was any evidence from which the jury could find that, even if defendant's representative violated the rules, he had acted reasonably under the circumstances. We conclude that there was such evidence. The safety watcher admitted that he turned away from plaintiff for 30 to 60 seconds prior to the injury. He did not recall the specific reasons why he turned away, but he testified that he was distracted by some other activity at the plant:

"Q. Am I correct right before the accident you were facing the transformers?

"A. That is correct.

"Q. Why were you looking there?

"A. My attention was drawn to something and I cannot recall what it was.

"Q. Actually, there was nothing that really drew your attention at that point in time; isn't that correct?

"A. Any number of things could have drawn my attention because I was responsible for the plant. I was responsible for three men on the deck. It was my idea to know where all three were. I could see two. The change in the hum of the transformer would have drawn my attention. A bug in the generator would have drawn my attention. If someone were to drop a wrench on the deck it would have drawn my attention.

"Q. Did any of those things occur to the best of your recollection?

"A. I would say the best thing that could have caught my attention would be a bump in the generator if we were running a rough load.

"Q. But you can't really recall today?

"A. I cannot."

There was also evidence that, at the time when the safety watcher turned away, plaintiff was not holding anything that could contact the energized bus bar. Further, there was evidence that the safety watcher had warned plaintiff about the energized bar several times during the day. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found that defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances and, thus, the trial court's denial of the motion for directed verdict was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • MAQUIEL v. Adkins
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • June 27, 2001
    ...likely under the circumstances. Cervantes, 90 Or.App. at 577-78,752 P.2d 1293 (emphasis added).8 Our decision in Torres v. Pacific Power and Light, 84 Or.App. 412, 734 P.2d 364, rev. dismissed 304 Or. 1, 740 P.2d 792 (1987), is much closer to this case than is Cervantes. In Torres, a utilit......
  • Gattman v. Favro
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 1987
    ...the statute was enacted to prevent. Resser v. Boise Cascade Corporation, 284 Or. 385, 587 P.2d 80 (1978); Torres v. Pacific Power and Light, 84 Or.App. 412, 415, 734 P.2d 364, rev. allowed 303 Or. 534, 738 P.2d 977 (1987). Foreseeability of the risk of harm remains a factual issue in a negl......
  • McAlpine v. Multnomah County
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • January 24, 1995
    ...the statute; and (4) that the injury plaintiff suffered is of a type that the statute was enacted to prevent. Torres v. Pacific Power and Light, 84 Or.App. 412, 415, 734 P.2d 364, rev. dismissed 304 Or. 1, 740 P.2d 792 (1987) (negligence per se ); Dunlap v. Dickson, 307 Or. 175, 179, 765 P.......
  • Torres v. Pacific Power and Light
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • August 11, 1987
    ...on review. With him on the response were Denise G. Fjordbeck and Jaqua, Wheatley, Gallagher & Holland, P.C., Eugene. Prior report: 84 Or.App. 412, 734 P.2d 364. Before PETERSON, C.J., and LENT, CARSON, JONES and GILLETTE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION. We allowed review because this case appeared ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • §33.5 Statutory Torts
    • United States
    • Torts (OSBar) Chapter 33 Negligence Per Se, Statutory Torts, and Statutory Duties
    • Invalid date
    ...existing common-law negligence claims and negligence per se counts. See, e.g., Torres v. Pacific Power and Light, 84 Or App 412, 414 n 2, 734 P2d 364 (1987) (plaintiff pleaded claim for relief based on negligence per se but not on statutory tort). Only if the methodology described in Portla......
  • §33.3 Liability Per Se
    • United States
    • Torts (OSBar) Chapter 33 Negligence Per Se, Statutory Torts, and Statutory Duties
    • Invalid date
    ...a distinction between motor vehicle statutes and other safety statutes. See, e.g., Torres v. Pacific Power and Light, 84 Or App 412, 415, 734 P2d 364 (1987) (in safety-regulation case involving electrocution, court said that "[o]nce a violation is proven, the burden shifts to the person who......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT