Connolley v. Omaha Public Power District

Joseph Connolley (plaintiff) was a minor who was assisting his father and uncle with erecting a metal flagpole in the Connolleys’ yard when the pole made contact with an electrical wire carrying 13,000 volts of electricity. The electrical wire had been hung by the Omaha Public Power District (the power company) (defendant) around six inches inside the Connolleys’ property line. Joseph and his father and uncle were injured by an electric shock. Joseph’s mother filed a trespass action on his behalf, seeking damages for Joseph’s injuries. At trial, Joseph based his claim on the power company’s trespass onto the Connolleys’ property rather than on negligence because there was no proof of negligence. A district court determined that the power company had trespassed onto the Connolleys’ property but that in order to recover damages for bodily injury, Joseph needed to show that the bodily harm he suffered was the direct and immediate result of the power company’s trespass, which had not been demonstrated. Additionally, even viewing the case as an action for negligence, Joseph would not be able to recover damages due to his and his father’s contributory negligence, which was the proximate cause of Joseph’s injuries. Thus, when the power company moved for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence, the district court granted the motion and dismissed the case. Joseph appealed. On appeal, Joseph’s theory was that (1) a trespasser on property was liable for bodily injury resulting from the trespass regardless of whether the trespasser’s action would cause liability but for trespass; (2) one did not need to prove negligence to recover against a trespasser; (3) contributory negligence was not a defense to a trespass action; and (4) proximate cause was generally a jury question. Joseph asserted that the district court was wrong for not allowing a jury to decide the issue of the proximate cause of his injury.