 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vaughan v. Eastern Edison Co.11/18/1999
97-P-1428 Appeals Court
Plymouth. January 11, 1999. - November 18, 1999.
Practice, Civil, Summary judgment. Negligence, Duty to prevent harm, Pedestrian, Electric light pole. Electric Company. Public Utilities, Electric company.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 7, 1993.
The case was heard by Gerald F. O'Neill, Jr., J., on a motion for summary judgment.
On a snowy evening in February, 1992, the plaintiff suffered severe and lasting injuries when she was hit by a car in a crosswalk on Burrell Avenue in Bridgewater. She was on her way from the Bridgewater State College campus to the commuter parking lot. Neither of the street lights on the opposite side of the street from where the plaintiff entered the crosswalk was working at the time of the accident. One had a bird's nest in the ballast; a live wire in the other was broken off. The defendant, Eastern Edison Company (Eastern Edison), owned and installed the light poles, apparently at the request of the college. The college paid for the service.
The plaintiff brought suit against Eastern Edison, claiming that her injuries "were caused by the negligence and carelessness of . . . Eastern Edison Company in failing to properly erect, inspect, repair and maintain the light." Eastern Edison moved for summary judgment claiming it had no legal duty to the plaintiff. A Superior Court Judge allowed Eastern Edison's motion on the basis of Davis v. Westwood Group, 420 Mass. 739 (1995) (racetrack abutting highway owed no duty to provide safe passage to patrons), and case law in other jurisdictions. On appeal, the plaintiff urges this court to "expand duties [of an electric utility] beyond those specifically set out in previous decisions . . . with a clear statement imposing liability on Edison." She relies in part on the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sect. 324A (1965).
Whether the defendant utility company had a legal duty to a pedestrian such as the plaintiff is a question of law. Bergendahl v. Massachusetts Elec. Co., 45 Mass. App. Ct. 715, 722-723 (1998). Since there is no dispute about the facts, a motion pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974), was appropriate. See Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 715 (1991), quoting from 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure (Rules ed.) Sect. 1231, at 96 (Wright rev. ed. 1958) (Rule 56 is "an excellent device to make possible the prompt Disposition of controversies on their merits without a trial, if in essence there is no real dispute as to the salient facts or if only a question of law is involved"). On review, we may affirm on grounds other than those given by the Superior Court Judge. Hawthorne's, Inc. v. Warrenton Realty, Inc., 414 Mass. 200, 210 n.6 (1993).
The narrow legal question before us is whether an electric utility company owes a duty of care to a pedestrian injured in an accident caused in part by an inoperative street light that the utility has contracted to maintain. Compare White v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 25 Cal. App. 4th 442, 447 (1994). While there is no published case in Massachusetts on this precise point, the Supreme Judicial Court long ago observed, " t is settled in this Commonwealth that the mere failure to provide and maintain proper lights in its streets is not negligence under the highway act, even if the way unlighted be dangerous." Hill v. Boston, 231 Mass. 372, 373-374 (1918).
Cases in other jurisdictions almost uniformly hold that utilities are not liable to third persons for injuries caused by nonfunctioning street lights. See White v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 25 Cal. App. 4th at 450; Quinn v. G
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|