The old adage "Find Out and Find Out" (F.A.F.O.) rarely sees such a literal and tragic application as it did in a recent case that has sparked a fierce debate about responsibility, property rights, and the limits of corporate liability.
The issue? The family of a man who was electrocuted and killed while allegedly attempting to steal live electrical copper wiring filed a $3 million wrongful death lawsuit against the utility company.
In a ruling that has sent clear shockwaves through the legal and industrial communities, the judge sided firmly with the company, declaring the deceased man's actions as the sole cause of his own demise.
The Incident: A Deadly Risk for Scrap Metal
The details of the case are stark and straightforward, yet horrifying. The deceased individual entered a secured area, allegedly with the intent of stripping copper from live high-voltage infrastructure. Copper theft has surged globally due to rising scrap metal prices, turning infrastructure sites into tempting, though lethally dangerous, targets.
During the attempt to cut or remove the wire, the individual made contact with a live line and was instantly electrocuted. His death was a direct, tragic consequence of interfering with energized equipment.
The Lawsuit: Blaming the Power Company
Despite the clear circumstances, the family of the deceased filed a lawsuit seeking $3 million in damages. The central argument was based on the concept of duty of care. The family’s lawyers argued that:
The company was negligent in failing to adequately secure the area or post clearer, more forceful warnings about the lethal voltage.
The company should have de-energized the lines, or placed them further out of reach, arguing the risk was foreseeable given the prevalence of copper theft.
Essentially, they claimed the utility company was responsible for not preventing a crime that led to the criminal's death.
gavel The Judge's Verdict: No Duty to Protect a Thief
The court's ruling was decisive and cut through the emotional arguments, focusing strictly on legal precedent and the principle of causation.
The judge stated unequivocally that the deceased man’s action constituted trespass and a dangerous criminal act. Key points from the ruling included:
Assumption of Risk: The judge noted that tampering with high-voltage lines carries an inherent and well-known risk of death. The deceased was engaged in a deliberate, illegal activity that involved violating safety barriers.
No Duty to Protect a Trespasser from Criminal Actions: The ruling emphasized that the utility company has a duty to maintain safe equipment for its employees and authorized users, but this duty does not extend to protecting a trespasser—especially one actively attempting to vandalize or steal company property—from the very danger the property is designed to contain.
"Victim's Own Fault": The judge concluded that the death was caused by the victim’s own calculated decision to illegally enter a restricted area and interact with a known danger. His actions, not any negligence on the part of the power company, were the proximate cause of his electrocution.
❓ The Bigger Question: Where Does Responsibility End?
This case highlights the tough legal lines drawn between corporate responsibility and individual accountability.
While the death is a tragedy for the family, the court’s decision affirms a critical principle: companies are not insurers against the consequences of criminal activity. If a court were to hold the utility company liable in this instance, it would effectively set a precedent forcing companies to design systems to be entirely safe for people intending to damage or steal them—a physically and financially impossible burden.
The ruling serves as a grim warning to those tempted by the quick cash of scrap copper: the price of illegal wire can be far higher than the market value. When you F.A.F.O. with high-voltage lines, the consequences are immediate, permanent, and, as the court affirmed, entirely your own responsibility.