Godesky v. Provo City Corp.
Utah Supreme Court
690 P.2d 541 (1984)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
James Godesky (plaintiff) obtained a temporary roofing job with Pride Roofing Company (Pride) (defendant). The job site was an apartment building owned by Monticello Investors (Monticello) (defendant). A high-voltage, uninsulated electrical wire—owned and operated by Provo City Corp. (defendant)—ran above the apartment building at a height of nine feet above the roof and connected to a transformer that was obscured by a tree and was unnoticed by Godesky. A second wire that had no electrical charge ran three feet above the roof. Godesky frequently came into contact with the lower wire before being asked by his supervisor to tie it to the higher wire in order to prevent the low wire from interfering with the job. When Godesky grabbed the high-voltage wire, he received a shock that caused severe and permanent injuries. Godesky brought suit against Pride, whose employees had assumed the high-voltage wire was insulated; Monticello, whose employees knew about the transformer and the hot power line but failed to warn Pride; and Provo City, which had no inspection or maintenance program, had not recently trimmed the tree, and had not posted warning signs in the vicinity. The jury found Pride 10 percent responsible, Monticello 20 percent responsible, and Provo City 70 percent responsible. Provo City appealed, asserting that Pride’s negligence was the superseding cause of Godesky’s injury. The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Frederick, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.