Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Hebert (P) sued to recover for personal injuries from receiving a severe electric shock while watering Enos's (D) flowers. P and D were neighbors, and D asked P to water his flowers while he was away. P agreed and watered without incident for three days. On the fourth day, while holding D's garden, P reached for the outside faucet and received an electric shock that threw him many feet through the air, melted his sneakers and glasses, set his pants on fire, and knocked his dental plate from his mouth. The fire department responded and observed water in the basement from a second-floor toilet. The electrical inspector couldn't really determine what was the cause' of P's accident. D moved for summary judgment. P provided an expert's report prepared by a professional engineer that clearly pointed to D's faulty repair of a toilet and subsequent flooding of the house as the problem. P became 'part of the electric circuit.' The plumber who repaired the toilet observed a plastic component of the ball cock assembly, out of place, at the bottom of the toilet tank. The plumber stated that with the plastic piece out of place, 'you would probably have a flood.' Before the toilet was repaired, the whole top of the plastic unit was blown off and all on the bottom of the toilet' by the water pressure. The trial court granted summary judgment and P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co