Edwin Wells, et ux v. Nespelem Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.
462 P.3d 855
Wash. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs Edwin Wells, Ann Minor, and the George Wells Family Trust lost their rural home and property to a fire that started near an NVEC power pole on their land.
- The NVEC pole, transformer, meter, and related equipment dated from the early 1970s; NVEC personnel visited to read and replace the meter but (according to plaintiffs) did not otherwise update the equipment.
- Okanogan County Detective Kreg Sloan investigated and concluded the fire originated at the top of the NVEC pole; he observed a cracked ceramic insulator and a cracked wooden pole and testified electrical leakage from the insulator caused smoldering leading to the fire.
- Plaintiffs sued NVEC for general negligence (failure to maintain equipment) and invoked res ipsa loquitur; NVEC disputed the causation and suggested alternative explanations (e.g., insulator cracked when pole fell, insulator on neutral line).
- At the close of plaintiffs’ case the trial court granted NVEC a directed verdict, finding insufficient evidence of breach and that res ipsa loquitur did not apply because fires can have many nonnegligent causes.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of breach and that res ipsa loquitur could apply given the fire’s origin in utility equipment; the case was remanded for trial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of breach and proximate cause to avoid a directed verdict on general negligence | NVEC neglected maintenance of pole and insulator; Detective Sloan tied cracked equipment and leakage to ignition of the pole and consequent fire | Evidence was insufficient; NVEC argued the insulator could have cracked when pole fell and that identified insulator serviced a neutral line, not a phase | Reversed: viewing evidence in plaintiffs’ favor a jury could find NVEC breached its duty by failing to maintain equipment and that breach proximately caused the fire |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies to a fire originating from utility equipment on private property | A fire caused by an electrical utility’s equipment is the kind of occurrence that typically implies negligence when the instrumentality is under the utility’s control | Fires often have nonnegligent causes; NVEC argued the pole was exposed to elements/third-party interference so exclusive control is lacking | Reversed: res ipsa loquitur can apply to fires from utility equipment; plaintiffs showed the instrumentality was under NVEC’s control and there was no evidence of third-party interference, so the issue goes to the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Paetsch v. Spokane Dermatology Clinic, 182 Wn.2d 842 (2015) (directed verdict standard; de novo review and favor nonmoving party)
- Chaney v. Providence Health Care, 176 Wn.2d 727 (2013) (directed verdict affirmed only if no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for contrary result)
- Pacheco v. Ames, 149 Wn.2d 431 (2003) (res ipsa loquitur is a circumstantial evidence tool and plaintiff need not eliminate all other possible causes)
- Zukowsky v. Brown, 79 Wn.2d 586 (1971) (res ipsa analysis focuses on the manner and circumstances of the injury)
- Keegan v. Grant County Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2, 34 Wn. App. 274 (1983) (utilities owe highest degree of care when operations expose public to serious accidents)
- Scott v. Pacific Power & Light Co., 178 Wash. 647 (1934) (utility must account for normal, foreseeable interactions with power lines)
- Collins v. Virginia Power & Elec. Co., 204 N.C. 320 (1933) (common law authority holding res ipsa applicable where utility controls appliances that generated and delivered electric current)