Williams v. Entergy Miss., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-02140-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CT-02140-SCT ; 2006-CA-02140-SCT ; 2006-CA-02140-COA ; 2006-CT-02140-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-16-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Negligence per se - Section 11-27-43(2)(c) - Rule 282(E) of the National Electric Safety Code - Dangerous condition - Duty to inspect streetlights - Relevancy of evidence - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, C.J., and Barnes, J. Dissenting Author : IRVING, J., without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Directed Verdict Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-17-2006 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: DIRECTED VERDICT GRANTED FOR DEFENDANT Case Number: CI2005-83 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ANTHONY PAUL WILLIAMS |
R. BRITTAIN VIRDEN |
||
| Appellee: | ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC. | JAMES LAWTON ROBERTSON, ELIZABETH ANNE GANZERLA |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Negligence per se - Section 11-27-43(2)(c) - Rule 282(E) of the National Electric Safety Code - Dangerous condition - Duty to inspect streetlights - Relevancy of evidence - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Anthony Williams filed suit against Entergy Mississippi, Inc., alleging he tripped on a guy wire and severely damaged his ankle. After Williams rested at trial, Entergy made a motion for a directed verdict which the court granted. Williams appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Williams argues that the circuit court erred by granting a directed verdict on his claim of negligence per se because Entergy violated section 11-27-43(2)(c) and Rule 282(E) of the National Electric Safety Code. In order for the doctrine of negligence per se to apply, the plaintiff must show that he is a member of the class that the statute was designed to protect and that the harm he suffered was the type of harm which the statute was intended to prevent. The applicable NESC rule, Rule 282(E), states that “[t]he ground end of all guys attached to ground anchors exposed to traffic shall be provided with a substantial and conspicuous . . . guard . . . .” Williams was a member of the class sought to be protected by Rule 282(E) and his injury was one that the rule was designed to prevent. Williams argues that the guy wire is exposed to high traffic because there is a neighborhood convenience store and a school in the area, but activity at the store and school does not mean that the guy wire is exposed to traffic. The area where the pole is located is surrounded by streets and sidewalks so that pedestrians could get anywhere by walking down a sidewalk or street without walking around the guy wire. There is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the guy wire was “exposed to traffic.” Therefore, Entergy did not owe Williams a duty under Rule 282(E) to place a guy marker on the guy wire. Williams also argues that the circuit court erred by granting a directed verdict on his claim of negligence because Entergy owed him a duty to protect him from the guy wire, which he argues is a dangerous condition. Entergy had notice that the guy wire existed without a guy marker because Entergy installed it. There is little evidence in the record, however, where any of Williams’s witnesses testified that the guy wire was a dangerous condition. Williams argues that the circuit court erred when it granted a directed verdict on his claim that Entergy negligently maintained the streetlight that allegedly contributed to his accident. Entergy’s duty to protect the public from downed power lines does not create a duty to inspect streetlights for lights that have burned out. Entergy did not have a duty to patrol the streets of Greenville at night–the only time when one could tell if a light was out–looking for a streetlight that is out. It is the responsibility of the City of Greenville and its citizen to report outages. There was insufficient credible evidence that Entergy had either direct knowledge or constructive knowledge that the streetlight was broken before the accident occurred. Williams argues that the circuit court erred when it excluded evidence of a guy wire with a guy marker, owned by BellSouth, across the street from Entergy’s guy wire. Williams tried to admit evidence of custom and usage in an attempt to show that BellSouth’s guy wire was in compliance with industry standards while Entergy’s was not. This evidence, as it was presented to the circuit judge, is a violation of M.R.E. 403 because Williams was not able to show, during trial, that both the Entergy guy wire and the BellSouth guy wire are governed by the NESC. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
