## Facts

- John Washington, Sr. maintained a citizens-band (CB) radio antenna in his residential backyard in Marrero, Louisiana.
- Louisiana Power & Light Co. (LP&L) owned an uninsulated high-voltage distribution line (about 8,000 volts) running across the rear of Washington’s property under a servitude.
- The line’s lowest point was about 21–21.5 feet above ground; Washington’s antenna extended to about 22 feet when raised.
- Years before the fatal incident, Washington suffered burns when the antenna contacted the line; afterward he expressed serious concern, exercised caution, and avoided moving the antenna near the line.
- Washington asked LP&L to move the line; LP&L would do so only if Washington paid the cost. The line otherwise complied with applicable clearance standards.
- Washington was later found dead near the antenna base; there were no eyewitnesses. The antenna had been moved from its usual location (where it was about 23 feet horizontally from the line) and raised or carried to within dangerous proximity of the energized conductor.
- An autopsy determined electrocution as the cause of death.
- Earlier that day, an LP&L serviceman responded to an outage complaint, restored service after finding a blown fuse, and did not observe any hazard in Washington’s yard.

## Issues

1. Whether LP&L breached a duty of reasonable care by maintaining an uninsulated 8,000-volt overhead line across a residential backyard without additional safeguards (insulation, burial, or abnormal elevation).
2. Whether, under a risk–utility analysis, the likelihood and magnitude of harm from antenna contact made additional precautions reasonable despite their cost and system-wide implications.
3. Whether the jury’s finding of negligence against LP&L was manifestly erroneous under the record.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal’s judgment reversing the jury verdict for plaintiffs.
- The court held LP&L was not negligent because the magnitude and likelihood of the specific risk were slight, while the burden of additional precautions would clearly outweigh that risk.
- The court concluded that additional warnings or inspections would not reasonably have prevented the accident given Washington’s demonstrated knowledge of the danger and the antenna’s ordinarily safe placement.
- The jury’s verdict for plaintiffs was deemed manifestly erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- A utility’s duty in power-line contact cases is evaluated by balancing the likelihood and gravity of harm against the cost and feasibility of additional precautions.
- Even where potential injury from electrical contact is severe, no breach is found when the probability of the particular accident is very low and prevention would require costly measures (e.g., insulating, undergrounding, or raising lines to abnormal heights) with broad operational effects.
- A plaintiff’s actual, specific knowledge of an electrical hazard can substantially reduce the foreseeability that additional warnings would change conduct and can narrow the scope of reasonable precautions.
- Under manifest-error review, an appellate court may set aside a jury’s negligence finding when the record does not reasonably support a conclusion that the defendant breached its duty under the applicable risk–utility balance.

## Conclusion

The court held that LP&L owed no duty to undertake costly, atypical modifications to a code-compliant high-voltage line to prevent a highly unlikely antenna-contact accident, particularly where the decedent knew of the danger from a prior incident and nevertheless moved the antenna into close proximity; the jury’s negligence verdict was therefore reversed as manifestly erroneous.


Washington v. La. Power & Light Co., 555 So. 2d 1350 (La. 1990)