## Facts

- Oahe Electric Cooperative constructed a high-voltage transmission line across the Lovells’ farm in May 1980.
- The line ran over or very near a deep well used on the farm, approximately five or six feet east of the well and about twenty-seven feet above the ground.
- In October 1981, Earl Lovell and Roger Lovell attempted to pull a metal pipe and rod from the well.
- The metal assembly contacted the energized overhead line, causing severe electrical burns.
- At trial, the utility presented expert testimony that the line complied with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC).
- The Lovells presented expert testimony that the utility violated multiple NESC provisions and that safer alternative construction methods were available.
- A jury awarded the Lovells $115,902 for personal injuries and property damage.
- The utility appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence on negligence and proximate cause and arguing that NESC compliance defeated negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether compliance with the NESC conclusively negates negligence by an electric utility as a matter of law.
2. Whether an unexplained NESC violation, if proven, constitutes negligence per se or merely evidence of negligence.
3. Whether the evidence supported the jury’s findings of negligence and proximate cause under the circumstances of the line’s location, height, and the accident mechanism.

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the Lovells.
- The court rejected the claim that NESC compliance is an absolute defense, but treated compliance as strong evidence of due care.
- The court held that, on this record, the evidence did not adequately establish that any negligence by the utility legally caused the injuries.
- The court concluded the causal connection between any alleged NESC violation and the accident was insufficient to sustain the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- An unexplained violation of a statutory or regulatory safety standard enacted to protect persons in the plaintiff’s position from the type of harm suffered may constitute negligence per se.
- Negligence per se requires more than proof of a violation; the violation must be shown to be a proximate cause of the injury.
- Compliance with an applicable safety code is relevant to the standard of care but does not, by itself, bar a negligence claim.
- Operators of high-voltage electric lines must exercise a high degree of care, but liability still depends on proof of breach and proximate cause, including reasonable foreseeability of the harm-producing event.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the jury’s verdict because the Lovells did not sufficiently connect any asserted breach of safety-code standards to proximate cause; while safety codes may define duties and violations can constitute negligence per se, recovery still requires proof that the code-related breach caused the injuries.


Lovell v. Oahe Elec. Coop., 382 N.W.2d 396 (S.D. 1986)