Smith v. Jersey Central Power & Light Company

24 A.3d 300 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Smiths (Ps) and their three young boys lived in a single-family house. The backyard contained a cement patio, a swing set, a sandbox, an above-ground pool with metal ladders, and a hot tub. In July 2002, they began to feel electric shocks when they went into their back yard without shoes and touched the water in the hot tub. An electrician found very high levels of electricity in the ground surrounding the hot tub and swing set. The electrician also determined that the source of the problem was not within Ps' house and suggested they call D. D determined that the source of the electric shock problem was D's electrical distribution system, specifically NEV. Returning electrical flow sometimes goes through the ground when the wires become overloaded. Because electricity seeks the path of least resistance, when the return is through the ground, the electricity will tend to ground to such things as pools, hot tubs, outdoor irrigation systems, faucets, and swing sets. D advised Ps to always wear shoes when going outside and not to touch anything metal or wear wet clothing outside their house. Ps filled in the sandbox dismantled the swing set and pool in their backyard and started wearing shoes both inside and outside. They stopped using their backyard. They spent $29,400 to install a second-story fiberglass deck onto their house, so their sons would have a place to play outside without touching the ground. D undertook extensive efforts over several years to correct the problem. Ps sued D for negligence, nuisance, trespass, inverse condemnation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. A real estate valuation expert, who expressed the opinion that the presence of NEV had reduced their property market value to zero. Even if solved, the 'stigma' from that problem would also reduce the property's value from $460,000 to $345,000. The trial court granted D's motion to dismiss the inverse condemnation claim. The jury returned a verdict for nuisance, awarding Ps $145,000 for property damage and $50,000 for interference with the use of their property. Everybody appealed. D had moved to set aside the jury verdict based on Ps' installation of a swimming pool in their backyard a few months after the verdict.