Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc. v. Duquesne Light Co.
52 A.3d 347
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Motor vehicle collided with a Duquesne Light pole on Forward Ave in Pittsburgh (Jan 8-9, 2009), breaking the pole and interrupting power to Hirsch and nearby customers.
- Duquesne Light repaired the line, replaced the pole, and installed new equipment including a three-phase transformer and a tri-plex, after which power was restored to the area.
- Restoration to Hirsch occurred last; repairs were performed from the roof of Hirsch’s building and power was reenergized without reported safety concerns by the crew.
- A fire originated in Hirsch’s basement electrical panel #1 shortly after reconnection, with Hirsch locked at the time of the incident.
- Hirsch filed an Amended Complaint asserting five counts: ordinary negligence; negligence with duty of highest degree of care; res ipsa; breach of implied hazard-free service warranty; and breach of implied repair/service care.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Duquesne Light; Hirsch appealed; the Superior Court reversed and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied warranty existence for hazard-free service | Wivagg/Bellotti support implied warranty | Wivagg/Bellotti distinguished from current facts | Implied warranty not supported by record |
| Stare decisis effect of prior decisions | Wivagg/Bellotti binding for Hirsch | Common pleas decisions not binding here | Court held Wivagg-Bellotti provide no relief; not controlling |
| Distinction between warranty and negligence | Harms from repairs constitute warranty breach | Claims should be treated as negligence | Court held not error to distinguish; warranty claims not established |
| Existence of duty under Althaus factors | Duty to inspect/warn before reconnection owed | No duty to pre-inspect; no foreseeability | Duty established; foreseeability supported; summary judgment improper on negligence |
| Duty and degree of care for dangerous instrumentality | High degree of care required; tariff aligns with reasonable standard | Tariff §19 controls standard; no higher duty | Reasonable-care standard under circumstances; duty found; remand for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Wivagg v. Duquesne Light Co., 73 D. & C.2d 694 (Pa. Ct. Common Pleas 1975) (implied warranty of safe and hazard-free electrical service precedent)
- Bellotti v. Duquesne Light Co., 44 Pa. D. & C.3d 425 (Pa. Com. Pak. 1987) (distinction on implied warranty claims)
- Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., 37 A.3d 1175 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment; abuse of discretion)
- Althaus v. ex rel. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 756 A.2d 1166 (2000) (five-factor test for duty in negligence cases)
- Stewart v. Motts, 539 Pa. 596, 654 A.2d 535 (1995) (dangerous instrumentalities require reasonable care proportionate to danger)
- Yoffee v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 385 Pa. 520, 123 A.2d 636 (1956) (high degree of care proportionate to danger; no absolute standard)
- Poorbaugh v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 666 A.2d 744 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (foreseeability of overcurrent/short-circuit harm in utility repairs)
- Stoloff v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 24 A.3d 366 (Pa.Super.2011) (court not bound by common pleas decisions)