$______ VERDICT - UTILITY COMPANY NEGLIGENCE - PLAINTIFF HIRED BY DEFENDANT ELECTRICAL COMPANY TO INSTALL 'STEP-BOLTS' ON UTILITY POLE - 40 FT FALL - MULTIPLE FRACTURES - INABILITY TO CONTINUE PHYSICAL WORK.

• Pages: 2-3

Summaries with Trial Analysis

$15,466,597 VERDICT – UTILITY COMPANY NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF HIRED BY

DEFENDANT ELECTRICAL COMPANY TO INSTALL “STEP-BOLTS” ON UTILITY POLE –

40 FT FALL – MULTIPLE FRACTURES – INABILITY TO CONTINUE PHYSICAL WORK.

Harris County, TX

This action involved a plaintiff in his late 20s, who

worked for a contractor who had been hired by

the defendant energy company to install a

number of “step-bolts” that would facilitate the

climbing of the pole. The electrical company had a

utility easement where the pole at issue was

located, which was not on its property. The

plaintiff maintained that when one of the existing

step-bolts dislodged as it was attached to his

safety vest, he fell approximately 40 feet,

suffering fractures to both ankles, a burst fracture

from T-11 -L-3, fractures of the left distal tibia and

talus; closed fractures of the right talus and

calcaneus and several fractured ribs. The plaintiff

maintained that he will permanently precluded

from engaging in physical work and suffered a

severe diminution of earning capacity. The

defendant named the employer as a responsible

third party, contending that it had installed the

wrongstepbolts.

The evidence was that plaintiff’s safety harness was

attached to step-bolt, it broke loose from the pole

and that caused his fall. The plaintiff established that

before him, the last person using this pole was an

employee of the defendant who determined that the

step-bolt in question needed tightening. The plaintiff

established that on prior occasions, the pole owner

found that when a step-bolt was loose, it may well

have been caused internal damage to the step-bolt

insert. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant’s

worker should have warned the plaintiff or his

supervisor.

The defendant denied that its worker was responsible

for the incident. The defendant pointed out that the

plaintiff’s co-worker had previously installed a step-

bolt which was longer than the one provided, con-

tending that this factor compromised the integrity of

the attachment. The plaintiff countered that to the

extent this factor contributed to the incident, the de-

fendant was nonetheless responsible. The plaintiff

maintained that the defendant did not publish or oth-

erwise communicate the appropriate methods and

details regarding the correct size of the step-bolt to

be used, contending that the defendant should have

provided better supervision and instruction.

The plaintiff sustained fractures to both ankles, com-

pound comminuted fractures to the left distal tibia

and talus, closed fractures to the other tibia and ta-

lus, a burst fracture from T-11 – L-3 , and several frac-

tured ribs. The plaintiff had already undergone some

8 surgeries and the plaintiff maintained that he prob-

ably faces 10 surgeries in the future. The plaintiff as-

serted that because of the ankle fractures, he has

already undergone partial fusions to both ankles. The

plaintiff contended that in order to perform surgery,

some bone would be used and that in view of the

limited life expectancy of the fusion, he faces the

need for a bilateral below-the-knee amputation. The

plaintiff also required fusion surgery to the lower back

because of stress placed above and below the levels

fused; the daily pain has increased extensively.

The plaintiff further asserted that he can no longer to

physical work and faces a very significant diminution

in earning capacity.

The jury found the defendant 51% negligent, the em-

ployer 49% negligent and awarded $15,466,597.00.

The award was allocated as follows: $ 391,597 for

past medical bills, $2,100,000 for future medical bills,

$750,000 for past physical impairment, $3,500,000

for future physical impairment, $250,000 for past dis-

figurement, $1,500,000 for future disfigurement. $

1,500,000 for past physical pain and mental anguish,

$ 3,500,000 for future physical pain and mental an-

guish, $175,000 for past loss of earning capacity and

$1,800,000 for future diminution of earning capacity.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s economics expert: Robert J. Boudousquie,

CPA from Houston, TX. Plaintiff’s engineering expert:

George R. Ross, Ph.D., P.E. from Houston, TX.

Plaintiff’s life care planning expert: David J. Altman,

M.D. from San Antonio, TX. Plaintiff’s orthopedic

surgeon expert: Michael Greaser, M.D. from

Houston, TX. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert:

Douglas George Smith, M.D. from Seattle, WA.

Plaintiff’s safety expert: Morris Mach from Austin, TX.

Wilder vs. Centerpoint Energy, et al. Case no. 19-

31428; Judge Cory Sepolio.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Matthew Matheny and Bryan

Blevins of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P. in

Beaumont, TX.

2

Volume 38, Issue 1, January 2023

Reproduction in any form without the express permission of the publisher is strictly prohibited by law.

Subscribe Now