Schwartz v Resi Corporation No. Scciv-00-1155

The matter before the court was a cross-appeal brought by the respondent, Resi Corporation, against the judge's findings that the respondent breached its duty of care to the appellant and that there was apportionment of liability between the parties in relation to contributory negligence. The appeal arose out of an accident that occurred on 13 September 1996, when the appellant, Schwartz, was pruning a tree near his house and was electrocuted when the tree branch he was cutting made contact with overhead electrical cables.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the respondent breached its duty of care to the appellant and whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The court needed to determine whether the respondent was negligent in maintaining the electrical cables in a manner that posed a risk to people working near them and whether the appellant's actions contributed to the accident. Additionally, the court had to apportion the liability between the parties if contributory negligence was found.

In considering these issues, the court examined the evidence and circumstances surrounding the accident. The judge found that the respondent did indeed breach its duty of care by not maintaining the electrical cables in a safe manner, as they were not properly insulated and were positioned at a low height over the driveway. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant's actions, while negligent, did not absolve the respondent of liability. The court apportioned liability, finding the respondent 75% liable and the appellant 25% liable for the accident.

The court's decision was based on the respondent's failure to maintain the electrical cables in a safe condition and the appellant's contributory negligence in pruning the tree in a manner that increased the risk of contact with the cables. The court's apportionment of liability reflected the relative contributions of both parties to the accident. The court's final orders were that the respondent was liable for 75% of the damages awarded to the appellant, and the appellant was liable for 25% of the damages.