## Facts

- Billie J. Martin was an alcoholic who drank at the Sassy B. Lounge and became intoxicated.
- While intoxicated, Martin made a bet that he could climb a utility pole located across the street from the lounge.
- Martin climbed the pole and, after reaching the top, touched an electrical distribution line carrying approximately 8,000 volts.
- Martin suffered a severe electrical shock and lost his right arm slightly below the elbow and his right leg slightly below the knee.
- Martin sued Louisiana Power & Light Company (Louisiana Power), the owner of the pole and energized line, seeking damages for his injuries.
- Louisiana Power moved for summary judgment, arguing Martin’s conduct amounted to contributory negligence that barred recovery.
- Martin opposed the motion, contending he was not contributorily negligent because his alcoholism deprived him of volition.
- Martin submitted a psychiatrist’s report and affidavit stating that Martin was an alcoholic who also suffered from organic brain disease.
- The parties stipulated, for purposes of the motion, that Martin was an alcoholic, was intoxicated when he climbed the pole, climbed the pole and contacted Louisiana Power’s energized wire, and that the first step on the pole was six feet four-and-a-half inches above the ground.

## Issues

1. Does a plaintiff avoid contributory negligence by claiming that alcoholism and intoxication deprived him of volition to refrain from dangerous conduct?
2. On the stipulated facts, was Martin contributorily negligent as a matter of law such that summary judgment for Louisiana Power was proper?

## Decision

- The court granted Louisiana Power’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that contributory negligence is measured by an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard.
- The court concluded that Martin’s voluntary decision to climb a utility pole—whose first step was more than six feet off the ground—while intoxicated and for a bet was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
- The court rejected Martin’s argument that alcoholism and related psychiatric evidence eliminated contributory negligence on these facts.
- Martin’s claims against Louisiana Power were dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory negligence is determined by an objective test: whether the plaintiff acted as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances.
- Voluntary intoxication does not reduce the level of care the law expects from a plaintiff under the objective standard.
- Evidence that a plaintiff is an alcoholic, including expert evidence of alcohol-related brain disease, does not automatically create a jury question on contributory negligence when the plaintiff’s conduct reflects an extreme and obvious disregard for safety.
- Summary judgment is proper when the material facts are undisputed and those facts show the plaintiff’s contributory negligence bars recovery under the law applicable to the claim.

## Conclusion

Martin’s intoxicated decision to climb a utility pole to win a bet, despite the plainly dangerous risk of contacting high-voltage lines and the pole’s elevated first step, constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law under an objective standard; his alcoholism-based lack-of-volition theory did not prevent summary judgment, so the court dismissed his claims against Louisiana Power.


Martin v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 54 F. Supp. 780 (1983)