Utilities and Roadside Safety (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 71-80
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 71... ...
APPENDIX C Examples of Lawsuits Involving Utility Pole Crashes C Paul Scott, Editor Lawsuits involving utility pole crashes have been separated into the following categories: • Judgments in favor of transportation departments, • Judgments against transportation departments, • Judgments in favor of utility companies, • Judgments against utility companies, and • Miscellaneous.
|
From page 72... ...
The Court of Appeals held that the county road commission was not liable to the passenger who sustained injuries because statutory waiver of the state's sovereign immunity with regard to the improved portion of the highway did not extend to the utility pole located 2 ft behind the curb. Case 3: Boteler v.
|
From page 73... ...
• The driver of the car was found to be 75% negligent in the accident. The area had been posted for a 35-mph speed, two signs warned of a sharp curve, and there was no evidence the driver made an effort to avoid hitting the pole.
|
From page 74... ...
Case 3: Armand v. Louisiana Power and Light Company, 482 So.2d 802 (La.App.
|
From page 75... ...
Case 5: Smith v. City of New Orleans, Louisiana Department of Highways, and New Orleans Public Service Incorporated, 616 So.2d 1262 (La.
|
From page 76... ...
Case 4: Boteler v. Rivera, 96-1507 (La.App.
|
From page 77... ...
control of his vehicle while rounding a 90° dog-leg-left curve and struck a utility pole, dislodging the transformer rack that was affixed to the pole and causing it to crash down atop and crush the vehicle. The Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Catahoula, after polling the jury, rendered final judgment apportioning 65% of the fault to the motorist, 25% to the utility company, and 10% to the parish and granted each parent $1 million in general damages before any comparative fault reduction.
|
From page 78... ...
In determining whether a defendant's negligence is the proximate cause of a plaintiff's injury, most courts focus on the foreseeability of the harm that resulted from the defendant's negligence. For example, if a driver negligently drives an automobile, it is foreseeable that the driver might cause an accident with another vehicle, hit a pedestrian, or crash into a storefront.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.