## Facts

- James Godesky, an inexperienced temporary roofing worker, was hired for a short roof repair job on an apartment building in Provo, Utah.
- Two wires crossed above a corner of the flat roof: a lower wire about three feet above the roof and a higher wire about nine and one-half feet above; the higher wire was an uninsulated 2,400-volt line leading to a nearby transformer owned and operated by Provo City.
- On the first workday, Godesky repeatedly contacted the lower wire without injury because it was not energized; he did not notice the higher wire and had no experience with electrical lines.
- On the second day, a supervisor directed Godesky to “tie off” the lower wire to the higher wire; a rope was thrown over the higher wire and pulled down within reach.
- When Godesky grasped the higher wire with both hands, he received a 2,400-volt shock and suffered catastrophic injuries requiring multiple amputations and other major surgeries.
- Evidence supported findings that Provo City lacked a regular inspection or maintenance program in the area, had not recently trimmed a tree that partially obscured the transformer, and had not posted warnings; the property owner and roofing personnel also failed to warn or acted on mistaken assumptions about the line.

## Issues

1. Whether the roofing company’s direction to manipulate the wire was a superseding cause that relieved Provo City of liability for injuries caused by its high-voltage line.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in instructing the jury on negligence and causation, including intervening and superseding cause.
3. Whether exclusion of certain defense evidence was an abuse of discretion causing prejudice.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the judgment against Provo City.
- The court held the roofing company’s and others’ negligence did not constitute a superseding cause as a matter of law.
- The court found the jury instructions, considered as a whole, adequately stated the governing law and were not prejudicial.
- The court held the evidentiary exclusions did not amount to prejudicial error warranting reversal.

## Legal Principles

- An intervening negligent act becomes a superseding cause only if it is not reasonably foreseeable and breaks the causal chain so as to relieve the original actor of liability.
- Where an original actor’s negligence creates or maintains a hazardous condition, foreseeable negligent responses by others typically do not supersede liability; instead, multiple actors may be concurrently negligent.
- Foreseeability, proximate cause, and allocation of fault among multiple tortfeasors are generally questions for the factfinder when supported by evidence.
- Appellate courts will not reverse for instructional or evidentiary error absent a showing of prejudice affecting the verdict.

## Conclusion

Provo City remained liable for injuries caused by contact with its uninsulated high-voltage line because the roofing company’s negligent direction to manipulate the line was a foreseeable intervening act, not a superseding cause, and the asserted instructional and evidentiary errors did not justify reversal.


Godesky v. Provo City Corp., 690 P.2d 541 (Utah 1984)