DiBiasi v. Joe Wheeler Elec. Membership Corp.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment for Joe Wheeler Electric Membership Corp. in a wrongful-death action arising from Dominic DiBiasi's electrocution by an uninsulated transmission line owned by another utility and attached to a Joe Wheeler pole. The court held that Joe Wheeler owed no duty of care because it did not own, install, maintain, or supply electricity through the line, and knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition alone was insufficient to impose a duty. The court also treated the wantonness claim as waived because it was not argued on appeal.

Holdings

1. Joe Wheeler did not owe Dominic the high and exacting duty applicable to a utility supplying electricity over its own transmission lines because Joe Wheeler merely supplied the pole, did not own or install the line, and did not supply the electricity that caused Dominic's death.
2. Even if Joe Wheeler knew or should have known of the dangerous condition created by Hartselle's transmission line, that knowledge alone was insufficient to impose a duty of care on Joe Wheeler.
3. The Morgan factors did not support imposing a duty of care on Joe Wheeler because its relevant activity was limited to allowing Hartselle to use its pole, there was no apparent relationship between Dominic and Joe Wheeler concerning the line, and the threatened harm was attributable to Hartselle's line rather than Joe Wheeler's pole-related activity.
4. Summary judgment for Joe Wheeler was proper because Joe Wheeler owed Dominic no duty of care and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
5. The wantonness claim was waived because the appellant made no apparent argument supporting it on appeal, so the court did not address that claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Joe Wheeler owed Dominic a high and exacting duty of care merely because it was an electric utility and owned the pole to which another utility's transmission line was attached.
2. Whether Joe Wheeler's actual or constructive knowledge, or alleged reason to know, of the dangerous condition was alone sufficient to impose a duty of care.
3. Whether the Morgan factors supported imposing a negligence duty on Joe Wheeler based on its ownership of the utility pole and its relationship to Dominic.
4. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment for Joe Wheeler.
5. Whether the wantonness claim was preserved for appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed