## Facts

- Dwane L. Dobson, a self-employed tree trimmer, was hired to remove trees in a homeowner’s backyard in Hammond, Louisiana, near an electric utility right-of-way.
- The right-of-way contained uninsulated high-voltage distribution lines (about 8,000 volts) serving an apartment complex.
- Dobson used a 13-foot nylon safety rope modified with metal wire reinforcement to prevent cutting the rope with a chainsaw.
- While descending after lowering a cut tree section, Dobson’s metal-reinforced rope contacted the uninsulated distribution line, and he was electrocuted.
- The lines had been installed in 1968; the utility had originally intended to bury the span but did not complete that plan.
- The homeowner had repeatedly complained to the utility about hazardous and overgrown conditions in the right-of-way, including limbs contacting wires and related incidents.
- Evidence showed that the utility previously interacted with Dobson after he damaged a residential service line but did not warn him about the distinct dangers of uninsulated high-voltage distribution lines.

## Issues

1. Whether the utility breached its duty of care by failing to maintain the right-of-way, insulate or otherwise protect the high-voltage line, or provide adequate warnings, causing Dobson’s death.
2. Whether the court of appeal erred in assigning 70% comparative fault to Dobson, and what allocation of fault was warranted under Louisiana comparative fault principles.

## Decision

- The court held the utility negligent for failing to maintain the right-of-way, failing to insulate the high-voltage distribution line, and failing to provide adequate warnings of the line’s dangerous nature.
- The court held Dobson also at fault because his conduct brought his metal-reinforced rope into contact with the line while working near known electrical lines.
- The court amended the court of appeal’s allocation of fault and assigned 60% fault to the utility and 40% to Dobson.
- The trial court’s damages award was reduced by 40% (not 70%), and the judgment was affirmed as amended.

## Legal Principles

- Electric utilities transmitting high-voltage electricity owe a heightened duty of care in the construction, maintenance, and operation of distribution lines, including reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable contact injuries.
- Foreseeability includes the likelihood that persons will work near lines in residential areas and near trees; notice of recurring vegetation and line-contact problems strengthens the utility’s duty to correct conditions or warn.
- A utility’s negligence may include both physical failures (e.g., inadequate right-of-way maintenance or leaving high-voltage lines uninsulated where contact is foreseeable) and informational failures (e.g., inadequate warnings about the dangers of high-voltage distribution lines).
- Under comparative fault, allocation turns on each actor’s relative contribution to the risk and harm, including knowledge, control over the hazard, and practical ability to prevent injury; a utility’s superior capacity to reduce risk can justify assigning it a greater share of fault.
- An injured party’s awareness of working near power lines and risky conduct can warrant a fault allocation even when the utility is negligent.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the utility’s failures to maintain the right-of-way, protect the high-voltage line, and warn of its danger were a substantial cause of the electrocution, but that the decedent also acted imprudently; it therefore set comparative fault at 60% to the utility and 40% to the decedent and reduced damages accordingly.


Dobson v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 567 So. 2d 569 (La. 1990)