By Thomas Franz
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT — A $1.25-million settlement was reached in favor of the estate of a 19-year-old cable installer who was electrocuted and killed while on the job.
The plaintiff succeeded despite a toxicology report that showed there was marijuana metabolite in his system at the time of the accident.
“We argued that the physical evidence at the scene suggested a mechanism of electrocution that did not involve negligence on the part of the decedent, so his potential marijuana intoxication was irrelevant,” said plaintiff’s attorney Laurence H. Margolis, managing partner of Margolis Gallagher in Ann Arbor.
Due to a confidentiality agreement, the names of the parties, defense attorney and court are not available.
A 19-year-old man was electrocuted while installing fiber-optic cable on a utility pole. A 7,200-volt current produced near-instantaneous loss of consciousness.
Margolis said there were no witnesses to the electrocution, which happened on a rural road on a clear day.
A co-worker found the victim unconscious in a tree several feet from the pole.
Electrical burns on the victim’s palms and gloves suggested that he touched an energized object with one hand and a grounded object with the other hand. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.
The installer had been employed for less than six months at the time of the accident and a toxicology report revealed an extremely high concentration of marijuana metabolite in his urine.
Legal action
The decedent’s estate sued the utility company that owned the pole by alleging that code and regulatory violations contributed to the accident.
In a separate action, the utility filed a complaint against the cable company for breach of an indemnity clause in their pole-attachment contract.
The utility also argued that the plaintiff’s own negligence and the cable company’s failure to train or supervise him were the primary causes of the accident.
Regarding the presence of THC metabolite in the decedent’s urine, Margolis said that indicated recent heavy marijuana use, but not necessarily that he was under the influence at the time of the accident.
Margolis said the state where the accident occurred has a DUI statute that sets a maximum level of marijuana metabolite in urine when operating a vehicle. However, a blood test for active THC can indicate present intoxication.
“The concentration of THC metabolite in the urine far exceeded the maximum permissible level when operating a vehicle. However, the decedent’s blood tested negative for THC at the autopsy,” Margolis said.
“The defense argued strenuously that the medical examiner would attest to the decedent’s level of intoxication,” he added, “notwithstanding the body only testing positive for metabolites.”
Because of the shape of the burns on the victim’s hands, Margolis argued that neither object that the victim had touched should have been energized. The objects were a strand cable and a guy wire.
“We argued that the guy wire was the most probable means by which the decedent’s body could form part of a connection between high-voltage equipment and the ground,” Margolis said. “Our expert opined that the guy wire at the time of contact was energized at approximately 7,500 volts.”
In seeking to maximize the award to the decedent’s estate, Margolis said the family never wanted to proceed against the cable company, but instead present a united front against the utility pole company.
“The decedent’s tort remedy against his employer was effectively eliminated by the relevant workers’ compensation statute,” Margolis said. “Any fault apportioned by a jury to the cable company would have likely reduced the plaintiff's recovery, since it would be non-compensable under the workers’ compensation statute.”
In order to prove the pole was in poor condition, Margolis said confidential records obtained in discovery as well as photographs of the scene taken by investigators were key.
“We alleged that the location of one of the guy wires on the pole violated the most recent version of the National Electric Safety Code, and the inadequate clearance between the upper terminus of the guy wire and a high-voltage jumper cable was the dangerous condition that facilitated the accident,” Margolis said. The plaintiff’s side also retained an expert with decades of experience in utility pole inspection.
“He identified many potential code violations which either contributed to electrifying the wire, or rendered ineffective safety equipment that could have prevented the electrocution event entirely or decreased the lethality of the exposure on contact,” Margolis said.
In the action between the utility and cable companies, Margolis said the cable company was forced to argue the victim performed his job correctly, the cable company adequately inspected the area, and the sole cause of the accident was a non-obvious electrocution hazard on the pole.
“This was also the theory of the case that would maximize the plaintiff's recovery,” Margolis said. “Only the fault attributable to parties other than the decedent’s employer was compensable in tort.
“We cooperated extensively with the cable company to support our common position that the utility was solely responsible for the accident.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
