Law Case Study in This Case, Study

Law Case Study

In this case, study there is a legal tussle between a power utility company and a complainant. While trying to remove a kite from power line, the complainant climbed a power pole without the consent of the utility. Unfortunately, he came too close to live power conductors that caused him to sustain severe injuries. The injured party decided to take some legal action against the power company (Knight & Knight, 2001). In this study, I seek to explore some of the good defenses from the standpoint of the power company. Furthermore, I briefly discuss the requirements for a plaintiff to prove negligence against defendant (Bermingham & Brennan, 2012).

The question arising from this circumstance is whether the power utility company acted negligently when the complainant suffered serious injuries while retrieving his kite from their property.

In tackling the legal question, the following legal concepts are crucial to prove negligence. First, the defendant owes the plaintiff the duty to care: the actions of the defendants should be reasonable in a manner to foresee a risk or harm. Secondly, the defendants in his actions should have breached this duty of care owed by acting unreasonably (Melone & Karnes, 2008). Finally, while acting unreasonably and breaching the duty owed to the plaintiff, the defendant initiated the injury suffered by the plaintiff. The injury must have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's deeds or misdeeds. Besides, the plaintiff did not contribute to it in any manner (Bermingham & Brennan, 2012).

The injury brought about by the accident is in no way occasioned by the breach of duty of care by the power utility case. From the brief of the case, it is evident that the injured did not seek permission or inform the company of his intention to climb the pole. This information points to the fact that it was a necessity for any person who would wish to climb the pole to notify the company. Since the plaintiff failed to fulfill this duty, his actions were unreasonable and evidently inconsequential for him to sue the company. Therefore, the complainant lacks grounds to argue out that the utility company acted unreasonably as far as their duty of care is concerned (Melone & Karnes, 2008).

Secondly, the defense may submit that the complainant trespassed into private property. It was unreasonable for the complainant to climb onto the pole and yet he understood very well that he was not licensed to perform such a task. The defendant may use the trespass into private property to invalidate the complaints raised (Bermingham & Brennan, 2012).