Justia Utilities Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner suffered injuries when he was struck by a power line belonging to Entergy. Petitioner filed a negligence per se claim against Entergy based on petitioner's claim that the power line was less than 22 feet above the surface of the traffic lane as allegedly required by Section 181.045 of the Texas Utilities Code. After a jury verdict favorable to petitioner, the trial court rendered a judgment for him. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Entergy was not required to maintain the line at the height petitioner claimed was required by statute. Because the court agreed with petitioner's construction of the relevant statutes, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.View "Traxler v. Entergy Gulf State, Inc." on Justia Law

The City of Dillon entered an agreement with the McNeills allowing them to connect to a water main for their domestic water supply. Later, the City granted permission to the McNeills to activate an existing water service to their property. The Conners bought the McNeills' subdivided lot, and the City billed and collected for the water that was furnished to the Conners. The water main subsequently froze solid, leaving the Conners without water service for weeks. The Conners sued the City for breach of contract and negligence. The district court entered summary judgment for the City, concluding (1) there was no implied contract between the Conners and the City, and therefore, the Conners' water use was unlawful; and (2) the negligence claim was barred by City Ordinance 13.04.150, which provides that the City is not liable for claims from interruption of water service resulting from shutting off the water in its mains. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the City had a legal obligation to provide water to the Conners under an implied contract; and (2) section 13.04.150 did not bar the Conners' claims because the City did not decide to shut off the water service.View "Conner v. City of Dillon" on Justia Law

Appellee was injured by a falling tree located near, but outside, an easement maintained by Utility Company. Utility Company had hired Service Contractor to inspect trees along its power lines and to remedy any situation in which trees or vegetation might affect the lines. Appellee filed suit against Appellants, Utility Company and Service Contractor, alleging that they were liable for Appellee's injuries based upon their failure to inspect, maintain, and remove the tree or to warn the landowner and the public of the danger raised by the tree. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellants, concluding that they owed no duty to Appellee and that Appellee was not a third-party beneficiary under the Appellants' contract. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the contract was ambiguous regarding whether Appellee had enforceable rights as an intended third-party beneficiary. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) for an injured party to qualify as an intended third-party beneficiary under a written contract, the contract must indicate an intention to benefit that third party; and (2) because the contract between Appellants did not indicate an intent to benefit Appellee, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Appellants.View "Huff v. FirstEnergy Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a company that processed perlite for horticultural and construction use, sued respondent alleging several counts for damages based on the claim that natural gas being supplied to petitioner was contaminated with debris that caused damage to petitioner's furnaces. Discovery and trial preparation were undertaken, during which time the parties engaged in numerous disagreements concerning discovery and other matters. Neither party filed a motion to have the case reset for trial and respondent subsequently filed a notice of lack of prosecution under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e), alleging that there had been no record activity for the prior ten months. At issue was the proper interpretation of rule 1.420(e), which provided for involuntary dismissal of court actions for lack of prosecution. The court held that the filing made by petitioner during the sixty-day grace period set forth in rule 1.420(e) met the rule's requirement for record activity and therefore, precluded dismissal for lack of prosecution. Accordingly, the court quashed the decision of the First District and approved the conflict cases certified by the First District.View "Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., etc. " on Justia Law