MIGUEL A. CALLEJAS, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HORSEPOWER ELECTRIC, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a negligence action arising from electrocution deaths of minor children who stepped into a puddle energized by a faulty street light pole, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the electric utility, holding that a company merely supplying electricity is not responsible for the condition of electrical infrastructure it does not own, control, or maintain absent knowledge of defects.
A utility company that merely furnishes electricity is not responsible for the insulation or condition of electrical infrastructure it does not own or control, and this principle extends to defective conditions on public property absent knowledge by the utility. Summary judgment for the utility was properly entered.
[1] A utility company that merely furnishes electricity is not responsible for injuries caused by defective wiring or appliances on private premises if the owner or occupant…
[2] The principle that a utility is not responsible for defects on private premises extends to defective conditions on public property, absent the utility's knowledge of the…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“where wiring or other electrical appliances on private premises are owned and controlled by the owner or occupant of such premises, a company which merely furnishes electricity is not responsible for the insulation or condition of such wiring or appliances and is not responsible for injuries caused by their defective condition”
Establishes the foundational principle of utility non-liability for infrastructure it does not own or control
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo minor children were electrocuted when they stepped into an energized puddle of water surrounding a metal street light pole. A frayed wire inside t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
SHEPHERD, J.
Miguel A. Callejas, as personal representative of Miguel Eduardo Callejas, a minor, and Yasset and Blanca Maria Inc-iarte and Jesus Guillermo Inciarte, as co-personal representatives of the Estate of Edgard Jesus Inciarte, a minor, appeal an adverse final summary judgment in a negligence action against Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). The undisputed facts show that the minor children were electrocuted when they stepped into an energized puddle of water surrounding a metal street light. The tragedy occurred because a wire inside the pole had frayed such that electrical current supplied by FPL energized the pole and thence the water. Although FPL supplied the electricity to the pole, it did not own the pole and had no contractual or other obligation to maintain it. Moreover, FPL did not have any knowledge of the frayed wire inside the pole.
It has long been the settled law of this state that:
where wiring or other electrical appliances on private premises are owned and controlled by the owner or occupant of such premises, a company which merely furnishes electricity is not responsible for the insulation or condition of such wiring or appliances and is not responsible for injuries caused by their defective condition....
White v. Orlando Utils. Comm’n, 156 So. 2d 879, 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). We see no reason why this principle does not extend to defective conditions existing on public property, at least absent knowledge by the utility. Id.
We find that the case before us is distinguishable from the numerous recent cases where the utility engaged in active negligence. See, e.g., Clay Elec. Coop. v. Johnson, 873 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.2004)(duty exists where street light maintenance company undertook to maintain street light); McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla.1992)(duty exists where electric utility employee assumed the obligation to accurately mark area traversed by underground cable for benefit of plaintiff); Goldberg v. Florida Power & Light Co., 899 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.2005)(duty to warn motorists of hazardous condition created when electric utility knew or should have known that deactivation of power would inactivate traffic signal); Dolan v. Florida Power & Light Co., 872 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether FPL negligently maintained streetlight where FPL specifically had contractual duty to maintain streetlight).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCAIN v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992)
- Clay Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2003)
- Goldberg v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 899 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2005)
- White v. Orlando Utils. Comm'n, 156 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Dolan v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 872 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)