Bernier and Kasputys were walking down the street where
(after a complicated series of events), a car driven by Ramsdell jumped a
curb and knocked down a light pole, which fell and injured the two.
Bernier sued the light pole owner, Boston Edison, for negligence.
They argued that Boston Edison had negligently designed,
constructed, and maintained the pole.
The Trial Court found for Bernier. Boston Edison
appealed.
The Appellate Court affirmed the decision.
The Appellate Court found that, based on the pole's
location next to the street, it was reasonably foreseeable that it might
be hit by a car. Therefore, Boston Edison had a duty to insure that the
pole could withstand such an accident.
Vehicles are designed with safety features to take into
account "foreseeable participation in collisions."
There was nothing in Edison's records to show that they
had ever considered vehicular collisions in their choice of poles.
There were other pole designs available that would have
survived the impact.
Boston Edison unsuccessfully argued that if they made the
pole stronger, there was a greater risk of injury to the driver who struck
the pole. Therefore, they had to make a decision on who was more likely
to be involved in an accident.
Far more drivers hit poles than pedestrians are hit by
falling poles.
Boston Edison's argument is known as the polycentric
problem.
