On June 17, 2013, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District issued its opinion in Southern California Edison Company v. City of Victorville, holding that a passenger in a vehicle that struck a light pole during an accident may maintain a negligence lawsuit against a utility company over the placement of the light pole involved.
Plaintiff Amanda Laabs was injured when the car in which she was riding collided with another car and then hit a light pole owned by Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”). Laabs sued various parties, including SCE. Laabs claimed that SCE acted negligently by installing and maintaining a light pole too close to the curb. In the litigation’s third appeal, the Court held that triable issues of fact existed as to “whether SCE owed a duty of care to motorists relative to the placement of street lights immediately adjacent to the traveling lanes of a high-speed roadway.”
SCE defended on the basis that the Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) has the authority to regulate the placement or location of light poles. Previously, SCE filed a tariff with the PUC, which required SCE to place light poles where the City wanted them and included a limitation of liability provision. When the PUC approved the tariff, therefore, any issues related to the location of light poles and/or SCE’s liability was subject to the PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, SCE maintained that allowing a plaintiff to recover damages would interfere with the PUC’s jurisdiction and was thus precluded by Public Utilities Code Section 1759.
In rejecting this argument, the Court explained that, despite the plenary power of the PUC, Section 2106 of the Public Utilities Code provides for a limited scope of private action against a utility for damages, where the utility has affirmatively caused or permitted an unlawful or prohibited act, or omitted to do that which was required.
Looking to the evidence and relying on Anchor Lighting v. Southern California Edison Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 541, 548, the Court in the instant case found that the PUC did not assume jurisdiction over the siting of light poles. Thus, because the City’s police power did not conflict with the exercise of jurisdiction by the PUC, the City had the right to control the location of light poles, pursuant to its police power. The Court therefore rejected SCE’s claim that the PUC’s approval of the tariff constituted an exercise of the PUC’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the limitation of liability provision was inapplicable.
Ultimately, the Court held that, under Section 2106, the superior court had jurisdiction to maintain the present action for two reasons: (1) the PUC did not exercise its authority over the placement of the light poles; and (2) there existed no specific order or decision of the PUC prohibiting an award of damages against SCE, nor was any PUC policy undermined by such an award.
This document is intended to provide you with information about product liability law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.