## Facts

- C.G. Bryant and Hal Bryant, doing business as Bryant Lumber Company, operated a sawmill supplied with electricity by Tri-County Electric Membership Corporation.
- In late 1986, the sawmill allegedly experienced electrical irregularities, including frequent equipment failures, transformer noise, and measured voltage surges.
- In October 1986, Tri-County replaced transformers serving the sawmill with transformers manufactured by Kuhlman Corporation.
- In April 1988, a fire destroyed the sawmill, causing more than $300,000 in property damage.
- The fire allegedly began when a switch attached to a lumber-surfacing machine exploded.
- Plaintiffs alleged the switch failure resulted from voltage surges over time that passed through the meter, degraded insulation, and culminated in the explosion and fire.
- Plaintiffs sued Tri-County and Kuhlman in diversity, asserting negligence, implied warranty, and strict liability theories for property damage.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Kentucky law, an electric utility may be subject to strict products-liability and implied-warranty claims for electricity delivered to a customer, or whether the utility’s liability is limited to negligence for careless transmission of current.
2. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that Kuhlman manufactured the transformer(s) allegedly responsible for the voltage surges that contributed to the fire.

## Decision

- Tri-County’s motion for summary judgment on implied warranty and strict liability was denied.
- The court held plaintiffs could pursue strict liability and warranty theories against Tri-County as to electricity after it passed through the customer’s meter and entered the premises.
- Kuhlman’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
- The court dismissed all claims against Kuhlman because plaintiffs’ proof did not sufficiently identify Kuhlman as the manufacturer of the transformer tied to the alleged harmful surges, leaving only speculation.

## Legal Principles

- Electricity may be treated as a “product” for strict liability and implied-warranty purposes once it has passed through the customer’s meter and is delivered in metered form to the customer’s premises.
- In the absence of controlling state authority excluding electricity from products-liability doctrine, a federal court applying Kentucky law may allow strict liability and warranty claims consistent with modern products-liability principles.
- A products-liability plaintiff must present evidence linking the defendant to the specific product alleged to have caused the injury; a merely probabilistic showing that the defendant might have manufactured the product is insufficient to survive summary judgment.
- Summary judgment is proper where a reasonable jury would have to speculate on product identification and causation as to a particular manufacturer.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed against the utility on strict liability and implied-warranty theories for allegedly defective electricity delivered after metering, but granted summary judgment to the transformer manufacturer because the plaintiffs could not produce sufficient evidence identifying it as the maker of the transformer connected to the alleged voltage surges.


Bryant v. Tri-County Elec. Membership Corp., 844 F. Supp. 347 (W.D. Ky. 1994)