Case Law Hughes v. Omaha Public Power Dist.

Hughes v. Omaha Public Power Dist.

Document Cited Authorities (30) Cited in (31) Related

Raymond E. Baker, of Law Offices of Raymond E. Baker, P.C., Columbus, and Michael W. Heavey, of Colombo & Heavey, P.C., Papillion, for appellant.

Rex A. Rezac and Russell A. Westerhold, of Fraser, Stryker, Meusey, Olson, Boyer & Bloch, P.C., Omaha, for appellee Omaha Public Power District.

Daniel P. Chesire, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., Omaha, and Raymond E. Walden, of Walden Law Office, for appellee Radiodetection Corporation.

Stephen S. Gealy and Amanda A. Dutton, of Baylor, Evnen, Curtiss, Grimit & Witt, L.L.P., Lincoln, for appellee Nebraska Communications, Inc.

HEAVICAN, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ.

STEPHAN, J.

Nickolas J. Hughes suffered fatal injuries when he came into contact with an underground electrical line owned by Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) while working in an excavation. Judith A. Hughes, his widow and the personal representative of his estate, brought this personal injury and wrongful death action against OPPD; Nebraska Communications, Inc. (NebCom); and Radiodetection Corporation (RDC). The district court granted OPPD's motion for summary judgment, concluding that it owed no legal duty to Hughes. Subsequently, in a separate order, the court entered summary judgment in favor of NebCom and RDC, determining as a matter of law that by his actions, Hughes had assumed the risk of injury. The personal representative perfected timely appeals from both orders, and we consolidated the appeals. We conclude that the record supports the judgment entered by the district court in favor of OPPD but does not support the judgment in favor of NebCom and RDC.

I. BACKGROUND
1. OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT

OPPD is a publicly owned utility company providing electrical power to Omaha, Nebraska, and portions of southeastern Nebraska. It is a political subdivision of the State.1

(a) Underground Electrical Powerline

OPPD maintains a buried, 8,000-volt, three-phase powerline in a public utility easement along portions of the east side of 120th Street in Omaha. The installation consists of three individual phase cables and one neutral cable, each housed in unmarked PVC conduit approximately 3 inches in diameter. The conduits are buried 3 to 4 feet below the surface of the ground. The relevant portions of the powerline along 120th Street were installed in 1980 and 1985.

At the time the powerlines were installed, OPPD had an internal reference drawing which provided design specifications on buried cable trenches. That standard provided that when specified by an OPPD design engineer, a warning or identifying tape may be buried 1 foot below the surface of the ground directly above the buried powerlines. The tape was described as a "thin piece of plastic with some type of verbiage" indicating the presence of a buried cable below. Testimony indicated that the decision on whether to specify the identifying tape is discretionary with OPPD design engineers. When asked the circumstances in which such specification would be made, an OPPD representative testified:

This particular cable was located in public right away. [sic] The people digging in those types of facilities are, generally, contractors and people in the business. If we were to go across private property, like, the homeowners', we never called in to get a locate. The engineer would have probably specified it or might have specified if he thought it was necessary.

A buried-cable industry standard also existed at the time the powerlines were installed. The relevant standards for the buried powerlines in question were the 1977 and 1984 editions of the American National Standards Institute's National Electrical Safety Code. Both standards specified, among other things, the minimum horizontal clearances between cables and minimum burial depth. However, neither standard required that the conduit or sheathing contain warning markings, nor did either require that warning or identifying tape be buried with the cable.

(b) One-Call Notification System Act

In 1994, the Legislature enacted the One-Call Notification System Act, Neb. Rev.Stat. §§ 76-2301 to 76-2330 (Reissue 1996).2 As the owner of buried electrical utilities, OPPD is an operator for purposes of the act.3 At all relevant times to this action, Diggers Hotline of Nebraska operated the state-wide call center providing the buried utility notification services required by the act.4 In 2001, the act provided:

(1) A person shall not commence any excavation without first giving notice to every operator. An excavator's notice to the center shall be deemed notice to all operators. An excavator's notice to operators shall be ineffective for purposes of this subsection unless given to the center. Notice to the center shall be given at least two full business days, but no more than ten business days, before commencing the excavation . . . . An excavator may commence work before the elapse of two full business days when (a) notice to the center has been given as provided by this subsection and (b) all the affected operators have notified the excavator that the location of all the affected operator's underground facilities have been marked or that the operators have no underground facilities in the location of the proposed excavation.

(2) The notice required pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall include (a) the name and telephone number of the person making the notification, (b) the name, address, and telephone number of the excavator, (c) the location of the area of the proposed excavation . . . (d) the date and time excavation is scheduled to commence, (e) the depth of excavation, (f) the type and extent of excavation being planned . . . and (g) whether the use of explosives is anticipated.5

The act requires that operators receiving notice from the center of a planned excavation "shall advise the excavator of the approximate location of underground facilities in the area of the proposed excavation by marking or identifying the location of the underground facilities with stakes, flags, paint, or any other clearly identifiable marking or reference point."6 The act further specifies that marking or identification of underground facilities

shall be done in a manner that will last for a minimum of five business days on any nonpermanent surface and a minimum of ten business days on any permanent surface. If the excavation will continue for longer than five business days, the operator shall remark or reidentify the location of the underground facility upon the request of the excavator. The request for remarking or reidentification shall be made through the center.7

The act imposes strict liability for property damage on excavators who fail to give notice of an excavation and subsequently damage underground facilities.8 The act further imposes civil penalties on operators and excavators who violate the notification and marking provisions of the act.9

2. RADIODETECTION CORPORATION

RDC is a New Jersey corporation which manufactures equipment used to locate underground utilities. One of its products is the "GatorCam System," which includes, among other things, a "Gator Locator," and a "Gator Transmitter." The system can be used in different modes of operation, depending on the type of buried utility that is sought to be located.

3. NEBRASKA COMMUNICATIONS

NebCom is a telecommunications contractor located in Sarpy County, Nebraska. It acts as a general contractor for telecommunications companies requiring installation and maintenance projects. In 2001, NebCom served as a general contractor for Qwest Communications, formerly known as U S West Communications.

On June 14, 2001, Qwest Communications engaged NebCom to clean out an empty PVC conduit buried in the utility easement along the east side of 120th Street in Omaha, south of Miracle Hills Drive. NebCom subcontracted the work to Burton Plumbing Services, Inc. (Burton) a plumbing contractor located in Omaha. NebCom did not notify Diggers Hotline at any time relevant to the project.

4. NICKOLAS HUGHES

Hughes was employed by Burton as a lead drain technician. He had been employed by Burton since about 2000 and was supervised by Bruce Arp and, on specific projects, by Patrick Morse. Arp testified that Hughes had been instructed on how to use the GatorCam system. Other testimony established that Burton employees attended periodic safety training and had generally been instructed that they were not to cut into any object unless the employee was absolutely sure of what it was. One employee testified that he was not specifically instructed on this point by Burton but that he knew from experience and common sense not to cut a line without knowing what it was.

5. HUGHES' ACCIDENT

Sometime between June 14 and June 22, 2001, Hughes and Steven Sinnett, another Burton employee, began the work of cleaning the buried conduit along 120th Street. They used a specialized commercial pressure washer called a jetter which they inserted into the empty conduit from a manhole access point located on the east side of 120th Street south of Miracle Hills Drive. They extended the jetter through the conduit to the next manhole access point to the north, a distance of about 400 to 500 feet. When the jetter had been completely fed through the conduit, they connected a separate cable to the jetter head and attempted to pull the jetter and...

5 cases
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2010
Perez v. Stern
"...E. Mallen & Jeffrey M. Smith, Legal Malpractice § 7:8 (2009). 17 See Swanson, supra note 6. 18 See, e.g., Hughes v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 274 Neb. 13, 735 N.W.2d 793 (2007). 19 See, Harrigfeld, supra note 15; Leyba, supra note 13; Pizel, supra note 20 See Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-50..."
Document | Nebraska Court of Appeals – 2011
Wedgewood v. U.S. Filter/Whittier Inc.
"...and his or her actual comprehension and appreciation of the nature of the danger he or she confronts. Hughes v. Omaha Public Power Dist., 274 Neb. 13, 735 N.W.2d 793 (2007). This subjective standard involves an inquiry into what the particular plaintiff in fact sees, knows, understands, and..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2008
Yoder v. Cotton
"...AFFIRMED. GERRARD and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ., not participating. 1. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-1106 (Reissue 1995). 2. Hughes v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 274 Neb. 13, 735 N.W.2d 793 (2007). 3. Id. 4. See Eggers v. Rittscher, 247 Neb. 648, 529 N.W.2d 741 (1995). 5. Malena v. Marriott International, 2..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2010
Mother v. Lancaster County Sch. Dist. 0001
"...N.W.2d 284 (1999). 7. Id. 8. See Heins v. Webster County, 250 Neb. 750, 552 N.W.2d 51 (1996). 9. See, e.g., Hughes v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 274 Neb. 13, 735 N.W.2d 793 (2007). 10. id. 11. See, e.g., Sharkey v. Board of Regents, 260 Neb. 166, 615 N.W.2d 889 (2000). 12. See Knoll v. Board o..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2011
Riggs v. Nickel
"...10. A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205, 784 N.W.2d 907 (2010). 11. Id. 12. See, e.g., Hughes v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 274 Neb. 13, 735 N.W.2d 793 (2007). 13. Id. at 28, 735 N.W.2d at 805. 14. A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, supra note 10. 15. See Restatement (Thi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2010
Perez v. Stern
"...E. Mallen & Jeffrey M. Smith, Legal Malpractice § 7:8 (2009). 17 See Swanson, supra note 6. 18 See, e.g., Hughes v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 274 Neb. 13, 735 N.W.2d 793 (2007). 19 See, Harrigfeld, supra note 15; Leyba, supra note 13; Pizel, supra note 20 See Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-50..."
Document | Nebraska Court of Appeals – 2011
Wedgewood v. U.S. Filter/Whittier Inc.
"...and his or her actual comprehension and appreciation of the nature of the danger he or she confronts. Hughes v. Omaha Public Power Dist., 274 Neb. 13, 735 N.W.2d 793 (2007). This subjective standard involves an inquiry into what the particular plaintiff in fact sees, knows, understands, and..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2008
Yoder v. Cotton
"...AFFIRMED. GERRARD and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ., not participating. 1. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-1106 (Reissue 1995). 2. Hughes v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 274 Neb. 13, 735 N.W.2d 793 (2007). 3. Id. 4. See Eggers v. Rittscher, 247 Neb. 648, 529 N.W.2d 741 (1995). 5. Malena v. Marriott International, 2..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2010
Mother v. Lancaster County Sch. Dist. 0001
"...N.W.2d 284 (1999). 7. Id. 8. See Heins v. Webster County, 250 Neb. 750, 552 N.W.2d 51 (1996). 9. See, e.g., Hughes v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 274 Neb. 13, 735 N.W.2d 793 (2007). 10. id. 11. See, e.g., Sharkey v. Board of Regents, 260 Neb. 166, 615 N.W.2d 889 (2000). 12. See Knoll v. Board o..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2011
Riggs v. Nickel
"...10. A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205, 784 N.W.2d 907 (2010). 11. Id. 12. See, e.g., Hughes v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 274 Neb. 13, 735 N.W.2d 793 (2007). 13. Id. at 28, 735 N.W.2d at 805. 14. A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, supra note 10. 15. See Restatement (Thi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex