Facts
- Giovanni Levi, an Amoco oilfield roustabout-pumper, was severely injured on February 16, 1982 while working at the E.C. Stuart #2 oil well in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana.
- Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Cooperative (SLEMCO) operated an uninsulated 14,400-volt overhead distribution line serving wells in the field.
- SLEMCO generally routed lines to avoid crossing well driveways or coming close to well sites, but at Stuart #2 the line crossed the only access road to the well.
- The line was located about 40.5 feet from the wellhead and about 25.7 feet above the driveway.
- Levi was working with a paraffin-removal truck equipped with a metal mast/boom that could be raised to about 34 feet.
- As the mast was raised near the well and access road, it either contacted the line or came close enough for electrical arcing, causing Levi to be electrocuted.
- Levi suffered near-fatal, permanently disabling burns and later underwent amputation of both legs.
- Evidence indicated SLEMCO knew oilfield servicing regularly involved tall masts/booms and that the access road under the line would be used for such work.
- Levi presented expert evidence that SLEMCO could have reduced the hazard by rerouting the line, increasing clearance, insulating, or providing warnings.
Issues
- Whether SLEMCO, given its knowledge of oilfield operations, owed a duty to protect against foreseeable contact or near-contact between tall service equipment and its high-voltage line at the well access road.
- Whether maintaining an uninsulated 14,400-volt line at that location and height created an unreasonable risk of harm under Louisiana’s duty-risk (risk-utility) analysis.
- Whether the jury’s finding that SLEMCO exercised reasonable care could stand when the risk of catastrophic injury was foreseeable and feasible precautions existed.
Decision
- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the defense judgment and the appellate affirmance.
- The Court held SLEMCO was negligent as a matter of law because the line’s placement and lack of protection created an unreasonable risk of harm to oilfield workers using tall masts.
- The Court concluded no reasonable jury could find SLEMCO exercised reasonable care on the undisputed facts regarding foreseeability, severity of harm, and available precautions.
- The case was remanded to the court of appeal for further proceedings consistent with the finding of negligence.
Legal Principles
- Negligence under Louisiana’s duty-risk framework turns on whether the defendant’s conduct created an unreasonable risk of harm, assessed by balancing the likelihood and gravity of harm against the burden/utility of precautions.
- Operators of high-voltage electrical distribution lines must exercise a high degree of care commensurate with the danger, particularly where contact by persons or equipment is reasonably foreseeable.
- Foreseeability may be shown by the utility’s knowledge of customary work activities near the line and by its own practices (including safer routing decisions at comparable sites).
- Where the magnitude of potential harm is catastrophic and feasible measures can materially reduce the risk at relatively modest burden, maintaining the hazardous condition may be unreasonable.
- Appellate courts may set aside a no-negligence verdict when, under the applicable legal standard and undisputed facts, reasonable factfinders could not conclude the utility acted with reasonable care.
Conclusion
The court held that operating an uninsulated 14,400-volt line over the sole access road to an oil well, with knowledge that workers routinely used tall metal masts in that area, created a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of catastrophic injury, rendering the utility negligent and requiring reversal of the defense verdict.