Twin State maintained uninsulated electrical wires across
a bridge. Children enjoyed climbing on the bridge. Dillon, who was 14 at
the time, climbed up, lost his balance, grabbed a wire, and was
electrocuted. Dillon's parents sued for negligence.
If Dillon had not caught the wire, he would have surely
fallen off the bridge and been killed.
Twin State argued that since he was dead either way,
there were no recoverable damages.
Twin State asked for a directed verdict, which was
denied. The jury was unable to come to a verdict. The Trial Court
transferred the case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court to determine if a directed
verdict was warranted.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court found against a directed
verdict and remanded the case for a new trial.
The Court found that whether Dillon would have fallen,
and whether he would have been killed if he had fallen were questions of
fact that a jury must decide.
If the wire had been insulated, then perhaps Dillon would
have grabbed it, not been electrocuted, and not fallen off the
bridge. If you buy this line of reasoning, then Twin State's argument
that Dillon would have been killed anyway fails.
Does Twin State have a duty to prevent people from
falling off a bridge?
If Twin State insulated the wire, but it broke when
Dillon grabbed it and he still fell, would they be negligent for
not making stronger wires?
This case also (as presented) does not seem to consider
whether Dillon was contributorily negligent.
Before Twin State presents a defense of contributory
negligence, Dillon would have to prove s prima facie case for
Twin State's negligence.
