Turley v. Montana Power Co.

CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 8, 1975
Docket12755
StatusPublished

This text of Turley v. Montana Power Co. (Turley v. Montana Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Turley v. Montana Power Co., (Mo. 1975).

Opinion

No. 12755

I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O M N A A F H F OTN

197 5

S M TURLEY, A

P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

-vs - THE M N A A PWER COMPANY, OTN

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant :

M r o , Nash and Sedivy, Bozeman, Montana or w Edmund P. Sedivg argued, Bozeman, Montana

For Respondent :

Berg, Angel, Andriolo and Morgan, Bozeman, Montana Richard J. Andriolo argued, Bozeman, Montana

- Submitted: A p r i l 8, 1975

Decided : q?,y -9 ~ 2 T MAY - 3 '1975 Filed :

I Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.

Defendant Montana Power Company b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d i n a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f Sam Turley. Three a d d i t i o n a l defendants, William H. H e i s e r , S i g r i d M. B u r r e l l and Wallace McHenry were o r i g i n a l l y named, b u t were dismissed m i d t r i a l on t h e i r motion without o b j e c t i o n of p l a i n t i f f . The j u r y awarded p l a i n t i f f damages i n t h e amount of $30,000. Defendant a p p e a l s from t h i s v e r d i c t and judgment . Turley was an employee of t h e Big Sky Model Homes of L i v i n g s t o n , Montana, when he r e c e i v e d s e r i o u s i n j u r i e s while working on t h e roof of a Big Sky Home belonging t o one Sam Heiser. He came i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h high v o l t a g e w i r e s which passed over t h e roof of t h e Heiser home. in The home/question w a s purchased by Heiser i n October 1970, from a b u s i n e s s known a s Premier Homes, a d e a l e r f o r t h e Big Sky brand mobile homes. On October 26, 1970, Premier Homes moved t h e mobile home o n t o p r o p e r t y owned by Wallace McHenry, a t a l o c a t i o n known a s t h e f o u r c o r n e r s a r e a i n G a l l a t i n County. The McHenry p r o p e r t y c o n s i s t e d of about t h r e e a c r e s and was p r i n c i p a l l y used by McHenry t o o p e r a t e a grocery s t o r e and a f i l l i n g station. There were a number of t r a i l e r p a r k i n g a r e a s on t h e a c r e a g e which had been used many y e a r s b e f o r e and McHenry i n 1969 allowedHeiser, h i s b r o t h e r - i n - l a w , t o s e t up h i s mobile home on t h e p r o p e r t y . When he s o l d h i s o r i g i n a l t r a i l e r on t h e s i t e , Heiser was p e r m i t t e d t o move a new one on t h e acreage. The o r i g i n a l t r a i l e r was 55 f e e t long, t h e Big Sky t r a i l e r was 66 f e e t long. I n approximately 1954, defendant Montana Power Company c o n s t r u c t e d an e l e c t r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e running n o r t h and s o u t h a c r o s s t h e p r o p e r t y now owned by McHenry. The p o l e s f o r t h e l i n e s were l o c a t e d along t h e p r o p e r t y fence l i n e s . One p o l e was a t t h e n o r t h end of t h e fence l i n e , a l o n g wfth s e v e r a l o t h e r p o l e s c o n s t i t u t i n g a switching s t a t i o n . The pole a t t h e s o u t h end of t h e p r o p e r t y was some 290 f e e t from t h e n o r t h end pole. A t t h e t i m e of t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n t h e Power Company r e c e i v e d two right-of-way easment deeds, one 50 f e e t i n width, f o r t h e opera- t i o n of i t s l i n e s . While t h e r e i s disagreement on whether t h e o r i g i n a l H e i s e r t r a i l e r was under t h e power l i n e s , t h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n b u t t h a t t h e Big Sky t r a i l e r was some 1 f e e t under t h e l i n e s . 1 The power l i n e s were o r i g i n a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d a t a h e i g h t whereby t h e lower f o u r l i n e s t r a n s m i t t i n g 7200/12470 v o l t s , known a s t h e 12 KV system, were seventeen f e e t , s i x i n c h e s from ground l e v e l . The upper t h r e e w i r e s , t r a n s m i t t i n g 50,000 v o l t s , were h i g h e r . This h e i g h t was w e l l w i t h i n t h e National E l e c t r i c S a f e t y Code. A f t e r t h e H e i s e r Big Sky t r a i l e r was moved under t h e l i n e s t h e lower f o u r l i n e s , t h e 12 KV l i n e s , extended only f i v e f e e t , s e v e n i n c h e s over t h e roof of t h e t r a i l e r . The upper l i n e s were e i g h t f e c t h i g h e r . The National E l e c t r i c S a f e t y Code pre- s c r i b e s t h a t t h e c l e a r a n c e h e i g h t over b u i l d i n g s be c o n s t r u c t e d a t a minimum h e i g h t of e i g h t f e e t , and w i t h t h e l e n g t h of t h e span h e r e , t h e h e i g h t should have been n i n e f e e t , f o u r i n c h e s . A t t h e time of moving t h e t r a i l e r onto t h e p r o p e r t y , no

one n o t i f i e d Montana Power Company t h a t t h e t r a i l e r was b e i n g moved under i t s l i n e s ; n o r d i d anyone a s k t o put t h e t r a i l e r on i t s easement. Premier Homes personnel d i d a l l of t h e n e c e s s a r y sewer and e l e c t r i c a l hook-ups, when i t moved t h e t r a i l e r onto t h e site. Immediately a f t e r s e t t i n g up t h e Big Sky t r a i l e r , Heiser began having problems w i t h i t and he r e q u e s t e d Premier Homes t o come o u t and f i x t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s he had found--such a s c a r p e t i n g , p a n e l l i n g , plumbing, t h e w a t e r system, t h e f l o o r and these windows. Premier Homes passed/complaints on t o Big Sky Company a t Livingston and Turley was s e n t o u t by t h e company t o f i x them. He f i r s t a r r i v e d t h e r e on November 5 and worked t h a t day through t h e 7 t h , making n e c e s s a r y r e p a i r s . A f t e r a weekend, he r e t u r n e d on t h e 9 t h , a r r i v i n g about 1 p.m., t o f i x the roof. O t h a t day he was accompanied by a n o t h e r Big Sky Company em- n ployee, a M r . Sparr. Turley t e s t i f i e d he and H e i s e r went up on t h e r o o f of t h e t r a i l e r where Heiser pointed o u t t h e problems he saw on the roof. Turley decided t h a t i t would b e n e c e s s a r y t o s e a l t h e roof t o prevent l e a k a g e , Heiser agreed t h i s would be s a t i s - factory. A t t h e time t h e men were on t h e roof Turley observed t h e w i r e s running over t h e t r a i l e r and was aware t h e y were high voltage wires. Following t h e roof i n s p e c t i o n t h e two men went down o f f t h e r o o f and Turley worked w i t h h i s co-employee f o r an hour o r s o f i x i n g windows. During t h i s t i m e , he t e s t i f i e d , he a g a i n observed t h e power p o l e s and t h e w i r e s above him. Turley then took h i s roof r e p a i r equipment and went back on t h e roof and began applying s e a l e r t o t h e r o o f . A t t h a t time he a g a i n observed t h e w i r e s , b u t d i d n o t t h i n k they would b o t h e r him, even though he i s s i x f e e t , t h r e e i n c h e s t a l l and t h e w i r e s were only f i v e f e e t , seven i n c h e s over t h e r o o f . Sometime d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d h i s forehead came i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h t h e most e a s t e r l y t r a n s - mission l i n e r e s u l t i n g i n s e v e r e i n j u r i e s . Appellant Power Company r a i s e s s i x i s s u e s on a p p e a l , however due t o o u r f i n d i n g t h a t i s s u e one, t h e f a i l u r e of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o g r a n t d e f e n d a n t ' s motions f o r d i s m i s s a l and a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , i s c o n t r o l l i n g , o n l y t h a t i s s u e w i l l be d i s - cussted herein.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

SPRANKLE v. DeCOCK
530 P.2d 457 (Montana Supreme Court, 1974)
McIntosh v. Linder-Kind Lumber Co.
393 P.2d 782 (Montana Supreme Court, 1964)
Stevens v. WalDorf-Hoerner Paper Products Co.
425 P.2d 832 (Montana Supreme Court, 1967)
Pickett v. Kyger
439 P.2d 57 (Montana Supreme Court, 1968)
Parini v. Lanch
418 P.2d 861 (Montana Supreme Court, 1966)
Anderson v. Northern States Power Co.
52 N.W.2d 434 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1952)
Farnum v. Montana-Dakota Power Co.
43 P.2d 640 (Montana Supreme Court, 1935)
Mize v. Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Co.
100 P. 971 (Montana Supreme Court, 1909)
Bourke v. Butte Electric & Power Co.
83 P. 470 (Montana Supreme Court, 1905)
George v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co.
196 P. 869 (Montana Supreme Court, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Turley v. Montana Power Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turley-v-montana-power-co-mont-1975.