## Facts

- Styles, an oil lessee conducting secondary recovery operations, erected and maintained electrical lines to power pumps on leased property.
- The pumps served by the relevant line had not been used for about two years; the pumps were partly dismantled and the lines were disconnected at the pumps, but the line remained connected and energized.
- The line carried approximately 480 volts and fell into the Eblens’ hog lot after part of a sycamore tree fell during high winds.
- 114 hogs owned by the Eblens, agricultural lessees on the tract, were electrocuted.
- Evidence showed the line could have been disconnected quickly at a nearby connection point.
- A jury awarded the Eblens $6,000 for the loss of the hogs.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported a finding that Styles negligently constructed, maintained, or operated the electrical line, such that a directed verdict for Styles was improper.
2. Whether the Eblens were contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to warn about the dead portion of the tree and/or allowing hogs near the line.
3. Whether the trial court’s negligence and contributory negligence instructions were erroneous and required reversal.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the $6,000 judgment for the Eblens.
- The court held the evidence supported submitting Styles’s negligence to the jury, emphasizing the high risk of an energized line whose operational utility had ended and the minimal burden of de-energizing it.
- The court held contributory negligence was a jury question because the Eblens could reasonably believe the unused line had been de-energized and their conduct was not plainly unreasonable as a matter of law.
- The court found no prejudicial error in the jury instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Reasonable care requires greater precautions when dealing with a dangerous instrumentality such as high-voltage, energized power lines.
- Maintaining an energized line with little or no continuing utility may be unreasonable where deactivation is easy and the foreseeable risk of serious harm is substantial.
- Natural forces (e.g., wind and falling trees) do not necessarily break causation when the hazard they trigger is foreseeable in the operation and maintenance of electrical lines.
- Contributory negligence is generally for the jury when the plaintiff’s knowledge of the danger and the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct are disputed.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a negligence verdict where an operator left unused, energized high-voltage lines in place despite a minimal burden to disconnect them, treating storm-related tree fall as foreseeable and leaving contributory negligence and challenged instructions to the jury.


Styles v. Eblen, 436 S.W.2d 504 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969)