Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc. v. Duquesne Light Co.
106 A.3d 27
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Duquesne Light, a PA electric utility, serves Hirsch Funeral Home in Pittsburgh; outage followed a motor vehicle crash damaging a utility pole.
- Lineman crew restored power after several hours, reconnecting service at Hirsch's premises; a fire ensued in the building's basement electrical panel.
- Hirsch sued Duquesne Light for ordinary negligence and highest degree of care, alleging failure to inspect or contact for access before reenergizing.
- Duquesne Light moved for summary judgment, arguing no duty to inspect customer-owned equipment; relied on service-point rule and precedents like Milton and Adams.
- Hirsch’s expert Wunderley offered a theory of overvoltage due to downed lines, claiming inspection would have prevented the fire.
- Superior Court reversed summary judgment, recognizing a duty to warn or inspect, prompting this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to inspect before restoration | Hirsch contends utility must inspect or warn prior to reenergizing. | Duquesne Light argues no freestanding duty to inspect customer equipment beyond service point. | Court held no error in recognizing a duty to take reasonable measures to avert harm where knowledge exists. |
| Duty to warn instead of inspect | Warning a customer about danger is a viable fallback duty. | No duty to warn; service-point rule controls and inspections are impractical. | Court affirmed recognition of a possible warning duty but did not definitively resolve it on this record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alderwoods (Pa.), Inc. v. Duquesne Light Co., 52 A.3d 347 (Pa. Super. 2012) (affirmed intermediate court's alternative duty to warn or inspect)
- Milton Weaving Co. v. Northumberland County Gas & Electric Co., 251 Pa. 79 (Pa. 1915) (service-point rule; no duty to inspect customer wiring)
- Adams v. United Light, Heat & Power Co., 69 Pa. Super. 478 (Pa. Super. 1918) (extends Milton; electric company not liable for customer wiring in some contexts)
- Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 618 Pa. 632 (Pa. 2012) (policies for expanding or limiting duties under public policy considerations)
- Lance v. Wyeth, 624 Pa. 231 (Pa. 2014) (policymaking decisions may be left to legislature with developed record)
- Stewart v. Motts, 539 Pa. 596 (Pa. 1995) (duty of care proportionate to consequences)
- Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547 (Pa. 2000) (restatement of factors for duty creation under common law)
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 606 Pa. 294 (Pa. 2010) (weight of expert testimony in summary judgment matters)