## Facts

- Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) maintained a 13,000-volt transmission line along the east boundary of the Connolley property; the line predated the family’s ownership and complied with prevailing construction and clearance standards.
- In 1962, the Connolley family began constructing a house; the line’s location and height remained unchanged before the July 3, 1965 accident.
- Shortly before the accident, Joseph Connolley’s father installed a concrete flagpole base a few feet from the transmission line and assembled a metal flagpole approximately 33 feet 5 inches long.
- Joseph, his father, and a neighbor raised the flagpole by “walking” it upright into the base; later, while lowering it with another adult, the pole contacted the transmission wire.
- At the point of contact, the wire extended about 0.54 feet over the property line, creating a technical encroachment into the family’s airspace.
- The contact electrified the flagpole; Joseph and others were shocked, and Joseph suffered injuries.
- The plaintiff expressly did not rely on negligent construction or maintenance of the line.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may recover for bodily injury on a trespass theory, without proving negligence, when a minor airspace encroachment exists but the injury occurs only after the plaintiff’s own handling of an object brings it into contact with the encroaching structure.
2. Whether, if analyzed as negligence, the conduct of Joseph and his father in raising and lowering a tall metal flagpole near a known high-voltage line constituted contributory negligence that barred recovery as a matter of law.
3. Whether proximate cause had to be submitted to a jury or could be resolved by directed verdict where the evidence permitted only one reasonable conclusion.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the directed verdict for OPPD.
- A technical trespass was supported by evidence, but personal-injury recovery in trespass required the injury to be the direct and immediate result of the trespass; that requirement was not met.
- Even if treated as negligence, the undisputed facts showed contributory negligence by Joseph and his father that was the proximate cause of the injuries, barring recovery.
- Proximate cause, though ordinarily for the jury, may be decided as a matter of law when reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion; this case met that standard.

## Legal Principles

- A technical trespass (including slight airspace encroachment) does not create liability for personal injury absent a showing that the bodily harm was the direct and immediate result of the trespass.
- Where a plaintiff’s intervening conduct is the immediate cause of contact with a stationary encroachment, the causal link to the trespass may be too remote for personal-injury recovery in trespass.
- In a negligence framework, contributory negligence that is a proximate cause of the injury bars recovery under the then-applicable Nebraska rule.
- Proximate cause may be removed from the jury and resolved on directed verdict when the evidence, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, allows only one reasonable inference.

## Conclusion

The court held that a slight transmission-line encroachment over a property line did not support strict personal-injury liability in trespass because the injury was not directly caused by the encroachment; the family’s handling of a long metal flagpole near a known high-voltage line was the sole proximate cause, and contributory negligence barred recovery as a matter of law.


Connolley v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 185 Neb. 501, 177 N.W.2d 492 (1970)