Miner v. Long Island Lighting Co., 40 N.Y.2d 372 (1976)
Power companies have an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation and maintenance of their power lines, with a heightened duty of care when high-voltage lines are located in close proximity to residences or areas where contact is reasonably foreseeable.
Summary
Miner, a tree trimmer, was severely injured when he contacted a 7,620-volt uninsulated power line while trimming a tree. He and his wife sued Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), alleging negligence in the placement and maintenance of the power line. The jury found for the Miners, but the Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the jury could have properly found that LILCO breached its duty of care. The court emphasized that LILCO had a heightened duty of care due to the power lines’ proximity to residences and their high voltage, and that the failure to inspect the lines for nearly 30 years contributed to the breach.
Facts
Miner, an employee of Floral Park Landscaping’ Co., Inc. (FPLC), was instructed to trim a 60-foot tree near a residence. The tree was in close proximity to high-voltage (7,620 volt) uninsulated power lines owned and maintained by LILCO. Miner had limited experience and training in tree trimming, particularly concerning trees near power lines. The power lines, installed in 1941, had not been inspected since. The lines were approximately 23 feet high and within 7-12 feet of nearby residences. Miner contacted the power lines while attempting to secure himself in the tree, resulting in severe injuries.
Procedural History
The Miners sued LILCO; LILCO then filed a third-party action against FPLC (Miner’s employer). The jury found in favor of the Miners. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, ordering a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether LILCO owed a duty of care to Miner to keep its power lines in a reasonably safe condition, and whether the jury could properly conclude that LILCO breached that duty.
Holding
Yes, because power companies have an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation and maintenance of their power lines, and the jury could have properly concluded that LILCO breached that duty given the high voltage of the lines, their proximity to residences, and the lack of inspection for nearly 30 years.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on the principle established in Braun v. Buffalo Gen. Elec. Co., which states that companies maintaining dangerous wires have an affirmative duty to exercise a reasonable degree of care to maintain proper insulation and prevent reasonably foreseeable accidents. The court emphasized that the duty of care increases with the voltage of the power lines and their proximity to areas where people are likely to come into contact with them. The court noted, “The question in each case is the character of the circumstances which require the exercise of those precautions.”
The Court found that LILCO should have foreseen the risk of contact with the power lines, given their location near residences. Expert testimony indicated that the lines were placed too close to homes, that insulation was available but not used, and that the lines had not been inspected in almost 30 years. The Court stated, “Here, where high-voltage lines were strung between closely spaced private residences, the risk to be foreseen was of the highest order; thus, the corresponding duty devolving upon the power company must be considered equally great.”
The Court rejected LILCO’s argument that Miner’s failure to comply with the rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals (12 NYCRR 3.1 et seq.) precluded his claim, finding the jury reasonably determined that Miner was not a