STEVEN J VALCANIANT V THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
STEVEN J. VALCANIANT and KATHLEEN A.
VALCANIANT,
UNPUBLISHED
February 19, 2002
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
No. 227499
Lapeer Circuit Court
LC No. 98-025040-NI
DETROIT EDISON COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
DE ANGELIS LANDSCAPE, INC.,
Defendant.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Doctoroff and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by leave granted from the circuit court order denying its motion for
summary disposition. We reverse. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff Steven Valcaniant was injured by a downed electrical line. He was directing a
driver who was delivering a load of fill dirt. The driver backed the truck under an electric wire,
of which both he and plaintiff were aware. When the truck bed rose, it came into contact with
the wire, which fell into a puddle near plaintiff. Plaintiff received an electrical shock, causing
burns to his arm and back. Defendant moved for summary disposition, asserting that it owed no
duty to plaintiff because his injury was unforeseeable. The trial court found that it was
foreseeable that the public would be injured by downed power lines, and thus defendant owed
plaintiff a duty.
Those engaged in the transmission of electricity “are bound to anticipate ordinary use of
the area surrounding the lines and to appropriately safeguard the attendant risks.” Schultz v
Consumers Power Co, 443 Mich 445, 452; 506 NW2d 175 (1993). The test to determine
whether a duty was owed is whether the utility should have foreseen the probability that injury
might result from any reasonable activity done on the premises for business, work, or pleasure.
Id.
-1-
There is no duty to warn someone of a risk of which that person is aware. Groncki v
Detroit Edison Co, 453 Mich 644, 656; 557 NW2d 289 (1996). Specifically, there is no duty to
warn of known overhead power lines. Id. Groncki involved three consolidated cases. In
Parcher v Detroit Edison, the plaintiff was injured while operating a forklift that came into
contact with power lines at a construction site. Id. at 650. In Groncki v Detroit Edison, the
plaintiff was a maintenance supervisor working on the roof of an apartment complex, when a
ladder he was moving fell onto power lines. Id. at 651. In Bohnert v Detroit Edison, the plaintiff
was delivering supplies to a construction site, and the boom he deployed from his truck came
into contact with power lines. Id. at 652-653.
In Parcher, the Court found that summary disposition was properly granted to the
defendant because it had no reason to know that any high profile machinery would be operated
near its power lines. The events were unforeseeable and no duty arose. Id. at 657. In Groncki,
the Court found that there was no duty where there were no defects in the lines and the plaintiff
was an experienced workman who was fully aware of the dangers of electric lines. Id. at 658659. In Bohnert, the Court found that it was not foreseeable that an experienced, skilled
workman would disregard clear instructions and operate his delivery vehicle directly beneath the
power lines. Id. at 659-660. The Court found that public policy of providing electric power at a
reasonable cost militates against the imposition of a duty in these cases. Id. at 661-662.
Applying the above principles, we conclude that defendant had no reason to foresee plaintiff’s
actions in this case. Because plaintiff’s injury was not reasonably foreseeable, defendant owed
plaintiff no duty to prevent it.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
