CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the Monongahela Power Company and other utility companies were not at fault for a man who attempted to fix low-hanging lines.
The court affirmed the ruling of Monongalia Circuit Court. Justice Tim Armstead authored the majority opinion. Justices John Hutchison and Bill Wooton dissented.
"After review, we agree with the circuit court that Petitioner’s actions were (1) the sole proximate cause of the incident and (2) 'constitute an intervening cause,'" Armstead wrote. "Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court."
Attorneys for the petitioners and respondents declined to comment on the record regarding the case.
Eugene Boyce, who was employed by Lowe's, was attempting to make a residential delivery on April 11, 2014, when he encountered low-hanging communication lines that his truck could not clear, according to the Nov. 8 opinion by the West Virginia Supreme Court.
To resolve the issue, Boyce climbed on top of his delivery truck and wrapped shrink-wrap around the communication lines, which were near an energized electrical line.
Unfortunately, Boyce made contact with the energized line and suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of his right hand.
Boyce and his wife brought a negligence action against the owners of the electrical and communication lines. The Monongalia Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents, stating that Boyce's actions were negligent and the sole proximate cause of the incident.
The court also deemed Boyce's actions as an intervening and superseding cause, even if there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the respondents' negligence.
Despite the denial of their motion to alter judgment, the Boyces appealed, arguing that a jury should decide questions of fact regarding proximate cause, foreseeability and intervening cause.
The circuit court's order emphasized that even if there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the respondents' negligence, Boyce's actions constituted an intervening and superseding cause, relying on the precedent that a willful act breaks the chain of causation. The court found that Boyce's acts were voluntary and operated independently of the respondents' actions, relieving them of liability.
In their appeal, the Boyces contested the circuit court's conclusion, arguing that while there might be a dispute about the respondents' negligence, the facts about how the incident occurred were not in dispute. The court agreed with the circuit court's determination that Boyce's actions were intentional and willful, breaking the chain of causation.
The court, citing precedent, affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the respondents, concluding that they were entitled to such judgment.
In his dissenting opinion, Wooton noted that while Boyce's conduct was negligent, there are questions that should have been presented to a jury.
"A majority of this Court has affirmed the lower court’s reasoning and its judgment," Wooton wrote. "However, I disagree with the majority’s reasoning and result. While Mr. Boyce’s conduct was undoubtedly negligent in its own right – one would be hard-pressed to argue otherwise – there are questions of foreseeability and causation in this case that should have been presented to a jury for resolution. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent."
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 22-0292
