GINA BECK, APPELLANT,
v.
L.R. RITCHIE, D/B/A L.R. RITCHIE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Beck appeals summary judgment dismissing her negligence claim against an electrical contractor who removed a pay telephone but left exposed electrical wires connected to live power, causing her injury. The court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact about whether the contractor's compliance with electrical code was conclusive of due care.
Compliance with applicable electrical code is evidence of due care but is not conclusive, and does not necessarily preclude a finding of negligence when additional precautions could have been taken. Genuine issues of material fact remain about whether the contractor was negligent in securing the outlet box or failing to disconnect electrical power.
[1] Compliance with electrical codes, while evidence of due care, is not conclusive on the issue of negligence and does not preclude a finding of negligence for failing to ta…
[2] Genuine issues of material fact regarding negligence in securing an electrical outlet box or in failing to disconnect electrical power to exposed wires preclude summary j…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although compliance with the code governing the performance of electrical work is evidence of due care, it is not conclusive of the issue, and it does not necessarily preclude a finding that Ritchie was negligent in failing to take additional precautions.”
Establishes the core legal principle that code compliance, while relevant, does not eliminate negligence liability when additional safety measures could have been taken.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceL.R. Ritchie's employee removed a pay telephone from a Circle K store and covered the remaining electrical outlet box and wires but did not disconnect…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gina Beck appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of L.R. Ritchie Electrical Contractor (Ritchie), appellee, in Beck’s personal injury action against Ritchie in which Beck alleged she had been injured by electrical current from exposed electrical wires left in an unsafe and hazardous condition following removal of a pay telephone by Ritchie. Because we find disputed issues of material fact, we reverse.
Ritchie, through its employee Gordan King, removed a pay telephone from the front wall of a Circle K convenience store in Pensacola. After removal, King covered the remaining electrical outlet box and wires but did not disconnect the wires from the power source to the box. Between the time of removal of the telephone and Beck’s accident, the cover of the outlet box was removed leaving exposed wiring. Beck sued Ritchie after she was injured by the electrical current in an exposed wire protruding from the location of the outlet box.
Ritchie moved for summary judgment, arguing that its work had been correctly performed in accordance with the National Electric Code governing electrical work in Pensacola. In response, by affidavit, Beck’s expert witness testified, in substance, that, even if Ritchie had covered the wires and electrical box at the time it removed the telephone as required by the code, Ritchie was negligent in leaving electrical power running to an outside connection box. The trial court entered summary judgment for Ritchie, ruling that Beck failed to establish that Ritchie violated any applicable provision of any code governing performance of the work. This appeal ensued.
Although compliance with the code governing the performance of electrical work is evidence of due care, it is not conclusive of the issue, and it does not necessarily preclude a finding that Ritchie was negligent in failing to take additional precautions. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Glazer, 671 So. 2d 211, 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see also, Kidron, Inc. v. Carmona, 665 So. 2d 289, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). When all inferences from the record evidence are drawn in favor of Beck, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain concerning whether Rit-chie was negligent in securing the outlet box or in failing to disconnect the electrical power to the wires in the box.
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JOANOS, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Env't Prot. v. Crest Prods., Inc., 671 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Kidron, Inc. v. Carmona, 665 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)