## Facts

- Public Service Company of New Hampshire operated a high-voltage electrical substation in Manchester, New Hampshire.
- The company had a longstanding practice of permitting student groups to tour the facility.
- Carmon M. Elliott, Jr., a 19-year-old electrical construction student, joined a class inspection trip led by a company employee.
- The tour included entry into a high-tension room containing exposed, energized high-voltage equipment.
- No warning signs were posted in the high-tension room, and the guide gave no specific warning about arcing or safe clearance distances.
- Elliott did not touch any equipment; while standing near energized components, he raised his hand and electricity arced to his finger, causing serious injury.
- Elliott and his father sued in federal court; the jury returned verdicts for both plaintiffs, including the father’s claims for medical expenses and loss of services.
- The defendant appealed only the denial of its motions for directed verdicts at the close of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a jury finding that the utility breached a duty of reasonable care by failing to warn or otherwise protect student visitors from the risk of high-voltage arcing in the high-tension room.
2. Whether Elliott was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, requiring a directed verdict for the defendant.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the judgments for both plaintiffs.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find negligence based on inadequate warnings and precautions in an area containing extremely dangerous high-voltage equipment.
- The court held contributory negligence was not established as a matter of law because reasonable jurors could differ on whether Elliott appreciated the arcing risk and acted unreasonably under the circumstances.
- Because the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiffs, supported liability, the trial court properly denied directed verdicts.

## Legal Principles

- A possessor of land who knowingly admits visitors into an area with highly dangerous instrumentalities may be required to take reasonable precautions, including warnings, to avoid exposing them to unreasonable risk of harm.
- Visitor status labels (such as “licensee”) do not automatically eliminate a duty where the possessor controls access, knows of the visitor’s presence, and the danger is not fully apparent to the visitor.
- In high-voltage settings, foreseeable harm includes injury from arcing without physical contact; reasonable care may require specific verbal warnings, signage, or barriers.
- Contributory negligence is generally a jury question when the plaintiff’s appreciation of the specific risk and the reasonableness of the conduct permit competing inferences.
- On a directed verdict motion, the court must credit the nonmovant’s evidence and reasonable inferences; if a reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant, the case must go to the jury.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the jury verdicts to stand because a reasonable jury could find that the utility failed to give adequate warnings or safeguards to student visitors exposed to a nonobvious high-voltage arcing hazard, and could also find that the injured student was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law.


Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Elliott, 123 F.2d 2 (1st Cir. 1941)