Loading
Construction
9 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Electrical Engineering, Power Line, Construction Safety, Construction Management, Premises Liability
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Texas State
On February 10, 2010, Juan Valdez and Alfredo Teran suffered electrical burns while working on the foundation of a condominium project on South Padre Island, Texas. The crew was installing concrete pilings when a piece of metal rebar more than 20 feet long contacted an overhead power line carrying over 7,000 volts. Electrical current passed through the rebar, knocked the workers to the ground, briefly caused them to lose consciousness, and burned their hands and feet. Los Compadres Pescadores, L.L.C. owned the property, while Luis Martin Torres managed and supervised the construction work for the company.
The dispute reached the Texas Supreme Court in Los Compadres Pescadores, L.L.C. v. Valdez, 622 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. 2021). The Court examined property-owner liability under Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, including actual knowledge, retained control, adequate warning, causation, and the open-and-obvious doctrine. It held that Chapter 95 applied because the location of the energized line created a dangerous condition affecting the concrete piling under construction. The Court affirmed the judgment for Valdez and Teran because the evidence conclusively established that Torres acted for Los Compadres, knew the line remained energized, and controlled the work that led to the accident. The incident also involved Electrical Engineering issues concerning voltage, overhead clearance, grounding, conductor contact, and the transfer of electrical current through metal rebar.
Los Compadres began constructing a four-unit condominium building on South Padre Island, where the sandy soil required more than 20 concrete pilings drilled about 25 feet deep. A subcontractor built a retaining wall near the rear property boundary so fill dirt could be added and compacted, raising the work surface and reducing the clearance beneath an AEP power line that had originally stood approximately 22 to 24 feet above the ground. Luis Paredes Jr., doing business as Paredes Power Drilling, told project manager Luis Martin Torres that the line was too close to the planned piling work. Torres said he would contact AEP, directed Paredes to begin at the front rather than the rear, and later told him the line remained energized but to continue working around it. These directions became part of the evidence concerning Los Compadres’s actual knowledge and control over the work.
Torres was not at the property but remained in contact with Paredes by telephone. Paredes testified that Torres told him the line would not be de-energized and directed him to complete the remaining piling work. Near the rear property boundary, Paredes, Valdez, Teran, and another worker lifted a metal rebar more than 20 feet long and weighing over 100 pounds to lower it into wet concrete.
The upper end contacted the overhead conductor, sending electrical current through the rebar. Valdez and Teran suffered burns, briefly lost consciousness, and were taken to a hospital. The line carried more than 7,000 volts and snapped during the contact, while the lower end of the rebar remained in the wet concrete and the upper section later rested against a telecommunications line below.
Paredes returned to the property after taking one day off, and his crew completed the remaining concrete pilings. Los Compadres later paid him to install underground conduit along the rear property boundary, and AEP moved the power line from its overhead position into the conduit. Valdez and Teran initially sued AEP and Paredes for negligence, while Paredes filed a cross-claim against AEP. AEP then added Los Compadres as a third-party defendant under Chapter 752 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, and the injured workers asserted ordinary-negligence and premises-liability claims against Los Compadres. AEP settled with Valdez and Teran before trial but continued pursuing statutory indemnity against Los Compadres, and the remaining claims proceeded to a jury.
The jury found Los Compadres, Paredes, and AEP negligent, assigning 50% of the responsibility to Los Compadres and 25% each to Paredes and AEP, with no responsibility assigned to Valdez or Teran. It also found that Los Compadres retained control over the injury-producing work and rejected AEP’s statutory indemnity claim. The jury awarded $150,000 to Valdez and $83,200 to Teran for pain and mental anguish. After applying settlement credits and prejudgment interest, the trial court entered judgment requiring Los Compadres to pay $96,983.51 to Valdez and $52,011.57 to Teran, and Los Compadres appealed.
The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Los Compadres Pescadores, L.L.C. v. Valdez, 608 S.W.3d 829. The appellate court concluded that Los Compadres had not met its initial burden of establishing that Chapter 95 applied. It found that the company had not shown that the overhead power line was the same improvement as the piling or foundation work and had not obtained a trial-court ruling or jury finding resolving that issue.
The court also rejected or found unpreserved Los Compadres’s remaining arguments concerning agency, allegedly conflicting jury findings, the open-and-obvious doctrine, and causation. Los Compadres then petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to review the decision.
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral argument in Case No. 19-0643. Los Compadres argued that Chapter 95 governed the workers’ claims and that the evidence and jury findings did not satisfy the statute.
The parties addressed whether the energized line qualified as a condition of the concrete piling, whether Torres acted as an agent or employee of Los Compadres, and whether the company controlled the manner of the work. They also discussed actual knowledge, adequate warning, causation, and whether the line’s energized status was open and obvious.
The Texas Supreme Court held that Chapter 95 applied because the energized line created a dangerous condition affecting the piling work. Its proximity exposed the crew to a probability of electrical injury while handling long rebar, even though the line was not physically attached to the piling. The Court also found conclusive evidence that Torres knew the line remained energized and controlled the work by directing where drilling should begin and instructing Paredes to continue near the rear property boundary.
The jury charge used the broader phrase “knew or reasonably should have known,” but the Court found no reversible error because Torres’s actual knowledge was conclusively established and attributed to Los Compadres. It also distinguished the visible presence of the line from its less apparent energized condition and found legally sufficient evidence of causation from the snapped conductor, marks on the rebar, and the workers’ immediate injuries. The judgment for Valdez and Teran was affirmed.
Court:
County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County
Case Name:
Los Compadres Pescadores, L.L.C. v. Valdez
Electrical Injuries
Electrical Shock
High Voltage
Electric Power Lines
Construction Accidents
Construction Engineering
Safety Engineering
Worker Safety
On February 10, 2010, Juan Valdez and Alfredo Teran suffered electrical burns while working on the foundation of a condominium project on South Padre Island, Texas. The crew was installing concrete pilings when a piece of metal rebar more than 20 feet long contacted an overhead power line carrying over 7,000 volts. Electrical current passed through the rebar, knocked the workers to the ground, briefly caused them to lose consciousness, and burned their hands and feet. Los Compadres Pescadores, L.L.C. owned the property, while Luis Martin Torres managed and supervised the construction work for the company.
The dispute reached the Texas Supreme Court in Los Compadres Pescadores, L.L.C. v. Valdez, 622 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. 2021). The Court examined property-owner liability under Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, including actual knowledge, retained control, adequate warning, causation, and the open-and-obvious doctrine. It held that Chapter 95 applied because the location of the energized line created a dangerous condition affecting the concrete piling under construction. The Court affirmed the judgment for Valdez and Teran because the evidence conclusively established that Torres acted for Los Compadres, knew the line remained energized, and controlled the work that led to the accident. The incident also involved Electrical Engineering issues concerning voltage, overhead clearance, grounding, conductor contact, and the transfer of electrical current through metal rebar.
Los Compadres began constructing a four-unit condominium building on South Padre Island, where the sandy soil required more than 20 concrete pilings drilled about 25 feet deep. A subcontractor built a retaining wall near the rear property boundary so fill dirt could be added and compacted, raising the work surface and reducing the clearance beneath an AEP power line that had originally stood approximately 22 to 24 feet above the ground. Luis Paredes Jr., doing business as Paredes Power Drilling, told project manager Luis Martin Torres that the line was too close to the planned piling work. Torres said he would contact AEP, directed Paredes to begin at the front rather than the rear, and later told him the line remained energized but to continue working around it. These directions became part of the evidence concerning Los Compadres’s actual knowledge and control over the work.
Torres was not at the property but remained in contact with Paredes by telephone. Paredes testified that Torres told him the line would not be de-energized and directed him to complete the remaining piling work. Near the rear property boundary, Paredes, Valdez, Teran, and another worker lifted a metal rebar more than 20 feet long and weighing over 100 pounds to lower it into wet concrete.
The upper end contacted the overhead conductor, sending electrical current through the rebar. Valdez and Teran suffered burns, briefly lost consciousness, and were taken to a hospital. The line carried more than 7,000 volts and snapped during the contact, while the lower end of the rebar remained in the wet concrete and the upper section later rested against a telecommunications line below.
Paredes returned to the property after taking one day off, and his crew completed the remaining concrete pilings. Los Compadres later paid him to install underground conduit along the rear property boundary, and AEP moved the power line from its overhead position into the conduit. Valdez and Teran initially sued AEP and Paredes for negligence, while Paredes filed a cross-claim against AEP. AEP then added Los Compadres as a third-party defendant under Chapter 752 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, and the injured workers asserted ordinary-negligence and premises-liability claims against Los Compadres. AEP settled with Valdez and Teran before trial but continued pursuing statutory indemnity against Los Compadres, and the remaining claims proceeded to a jury.
The jury found Los Compadres, Paredes, and AEP negligent, assigning 50% of the responsibility to Los Compadres and 25% each to Paredes and AEP, with no responsibility assigned to Valdez or Teran. It also found that Los Compadres retained control over the injury-producing work and rejected AEP’s statutory indemnity claim. The jury awarded $150,000 to Valdez and $83,200 to Teran for pain and mental anguish. After applying settlement credits and prejudgment interest, the trial court entered judgment requiring Los Compadres to pay $96,983.51 to Valdez and $52,011.57 to Teran, and Los Compadres appealed.
The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Los Compadres Pescadores, L.L.C. v. Valdez, 608 S.W.3d 829. The appellate court concluded that Los Compadres had not met its initial burden of establishing that Chapter 95 applied. It found that the company had not shown that the overhead power line was the same improvement as the piling or foundation work and had not obtained a trial-court ruling or jury finding resolving that issue.
The court also rejected or found unpreserved Los Compadres’s remaining arguments concerning agency, allegedly conflicting jury findings, the open-and-obvious doctrine, and causation. Los Compadres then petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to review the decision.
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral argument in Case No. 19-0643. Los Compadres argued that Chapter 95 governed the workers’ claims and that the evidence and jury findings did not satisfy the statute.
The parties addressed whether the energized line qualified as a condition of the concrete piling, whether Torres acted as an agent or employee of Los Compadres, and whether the company controlled the manner of the work. They also discussed actual knowledge, adequate warning, causation, and whether the line’s energized status was open and obvious.
The Texas Supreme Court held that Chapter 95 applied because the energized line created a dangerous condition affecting the piling work. Its proximity exposed the crew to a probability of electrical injury while handling long rebar, even though the line was not physically attached to the piling. The Court also found conclusive evidence that Torres knew the line remained energized and controlled the work by directing where drilling should begin and instructing Paredes to continue near the rear property boundary.
The jury charge used the broader phrase “knew or reasonably should have known,” but the Court found no reversible error because Torres’s actual knowledge was conclusively established and attributed to Los Compadres. It also distinguished the visible presence of the line from its less apparent energized condition and found legally sufficient evidence of causation from the snapped conductor, marks on the rebar, and the workers’ immediate injuries. The judgment for Valdez and Teran was affirmed.
Electrical Injury Expert Witness
An electrical injury expert may evaluate the circumstances of the electrical contact, including the line voltage, conductor height, clearance from the raised work surface, grounding conditions, the path of electrical current through the rebar, and the relationship between the electrical exposure and the resulting injuries.
Construction Safety Expert Witness
A construction safety expert may review the precautions used for work near energized overhead conductors, including hazard assessments, crew instructions, clearance procedures, and decisions to continue work after the line condition was reported.
Construction Management Expert Witness
A construction management expert may examine the authority exercised by the property owner and project manager, including changes to the drilling sequence, utility coordination, and directions given to the subcontractor.
Medical Expert Witness
A physician may address electrical burns, loss of consciousness, neurological symptoms, treatment, physical limitations, and whether particular injuries resulted from electrical current or impact with the ground.
Chapter 95 Requires a Connection to the Same Improvement
Chapter 95 applies to certain claims by contractors, subcontractors, or their employees against property owners when the injury arises from the condition or use of the same improvement being constructed, repaired, renovated, or modified. The condition does not need to be physically attached to the improvement if its proximity creates a probability of harm during the ordinary performance of the work.
Actual Knowledge Requires Direct Awareness of the Condition
A claimant under Chapter 95 must prove that the property owner actually knew about the dangerous condition. Evidence that the owner should have discovered it is not enough. Statements confirming that an overhead line remained energized may establish direct awareness of the condition during the work.
Detailed Work Directions May Establish Retained Control
Retained control may exist when a property owner or its representative directs where the work will occur, changes the contractor’s normal sequence, or instructs the contractor to proceed under specific site conditions. The control must relate to the manner of the injury-producing work, while general supervision, progress inspections, or start-and-stop authority alone are insufficient.
A Visible Conductor May Have a Less Apparent Electrical Condition
Workers may see an overhead conductor without knowing whether it remains energized. Courts may distinguish between awareness of the line’s physical presence and knowledge of its electrical status, considering what the workers were told, what arrangements they believed had been made, and whether the energized condition was reasonably apparent.
Jury Awards May Differ From Final Judgment Amounts
A jury’s damages award may differ from the amount entered in the final judgment because settlement credits can reduce the amount owed, while prejudgment interest can increase it. Here, the jury awarded $150,000 to Valdez and $83,200 to Teran, but the final amounts entered against Los Compadres were $96,983.51 and $52,011.57.
The litigation ended with the judgment for Juan Valdez and Alfredo Teran intact. The jury assigned half of the responsibility to Los Compadres, divided the remaining responsibility between Paredes and AEP, and found no fault on the part of the injured workers. After settlement credits and prejudgment interest, the trial court entered final amounts of $96,983.51 for Valdez and $52,011.57 for Teran. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in 2019, and the Texas Supreme Court affirmed it again on March 26, 2021. The final decision rested on the relationship between the energized line and the piling work, Torres’s knowledge that the line remained energized, and his directions concerning where and how the crew should continue working.
How Did the Construction Work Reduce the Clearance Below the Power Line?
A retaining wall was built near the rear property boundary, and fill dirt was added and compacted inside the site. Raising the work surface reduced the vertical distance between the ground and the overhead conductor.
Why Did the Drilling Crew Begin Work at the Front of the Property?
Paredes normally began piling work at the rear, but Torres directed him to start at the front. The revised sequence allowed work to proceed while Torres attempted to address the energized line near the rear boundary.
What Happened to the Power Line After the Accident?
Los Compadres later paid Paredes to install underground conduit along the rear property line. AEP then moved the electrical line from its overhead position into the conduit.
Did the Jury Find Juan Valdez or Alfredo Teran Responsible for the Accident?
No. The jury assigned no responsibility to either injured worker. It allocated 50% of the responsibility to Los Compadres, 25% to Paredes, and 25% to AEP.
What Happened to AEP’s Indemnity Claim Against Los Compadres?
AEP continued pursuing statutory indemnity after settling with Valdez and Teran. The jury rejected that claim, and the final judgment did not award indemnity to AEP.
Electrical Injury Expert Witness
An electrical injury expert may evaluate the circumstances of the electrical contact, including the line voltage, conductor height, clearance from the raised work surface, grounding conditions, the path of electrical current through the rebar, and the relationship between the electrical exposure and the resulting injuries.
Construction Safety Expert Witness
A construction safety expert may review the precautions used for work near energized overhead conductors, including hazard assessments, crew instructions, clearance procedures, and decisions to continue work after the line condition was reported.
Construction Management Expert Witness
A construction management expert may examine the authority exercised by the property owner and project manager, including changes to the drilling sequence, utility coordination, and directions given to the subcontractor.
Medical Expert Witness
A physician may address electrical burns, loss of consciousness, neurological symptoms, treatment, physical limitations, and whether particular injuries resulted from electrical current or impact with the ground.
Chapter 95 Requires a Connection to the Same Improvement
Chapter 95 applies to certain claims by contractors, subcontractors, or their employees against property owners when the injury arises from the condition or use of the same improvement being constructed, repaired, renovated, or modified. The condition does not need to be physically attached to the improvement if its proximity creates a probability of harm during the ordinary performance of the work.
Actual Knowledge Requires Direct Awareness of the Condition
A claimant under Chapter 95 must prove that the property owner actually knew about the dangerous condition. Evidence that the owner should have discovered it is not enough. Statements confirming that an overhead line remained energized may establish direct awareness of the condition during the work.
Detailed Work Directions May Establish Retained Control
Retained control may exist when a property owner or its representative directs where the work will occur, changes the contractor’s normal sequence, or instructs the contractor to proceed under specific site conditions. The control must relate to the manner of the injury-producing work, while general supervision, progress inspections, or start-and-stop authority alone are insufficient.
A Visible Conductor May Have a Less Apparent Electrical Condition
Workers may see an overhead conductor without knowing whether it remains energized. Courts may distinguish between awareness of the line’s physical presence and knowledge of its electrical status, considering what the workers were told, what arrangements they believed had been made, and whether the energized condition was reasonably apparent.
Jury Awards May Differ From Final Judgment Amounts
A jury’s damages award may differ from the amount entered in the final judgment because settlement credits can reduce the amount owed, while prejudgment interest can increase it. Here, the jury awarded $150,000 to Valdez and $83,200 to Teran, but the final amounts entered against Los Compadres were $96,983.51 and $52,011.57.
The litigation ended with the judgment for Juan Valdez and Alfredo Teran intact. The jury assigned half of the responsibility to Los Compadres, divided the remaining responsibility between Paredes and AEP, and found no fault on the part of the injured workers. After settlement credits and prejudgment interest, the trial court entered final amounts of $96,983.51 for Valdez and $52,011.57 for Teran. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in 2019, and the Texas Supreme Court affirmed it again on March 26, 2021. The final decision rested on the relationship between the energized line and the piling work, Torres’s knowledge that the line remained energized, and his directions concerning where and how the crew should continue working.
How Did the Construction Work Reduce the Clearance Below the Power Line?
A retaining wall was built near the rear property boundary, and fill dirt was added and compacted inside the site. Raising the work surface reduced the vertical distance between the ground and the overhead conductor.
Why Did the Drilling Crew Begin Work at the Front of the Property?
Paredes normally began piling work at the rear, but Torres directed him to start at the front. The revised sequence allowed work to proceed while Torres attempted to address the energized line near the rear boundary.
What Happened to the Power Line After the Accident?
Los Compadres later paid Paredes to install underground conduit along the rear property line. AEP then moved the electrical line from its overhead position into the conduit.
Did the Jury Find Juan Valdez or Alfredo Teran Responsible for the Accident?
No. The jury assigned no responsibility to either injured worker. It allocated 50% of the responsibility to Los Compadres, 25% to Paredes, and 25% to AEP.
What Happened to AEP’s Indemnity Claim Against Los Compadres?
AEP continued pursuing statutory indemnity after settling with Valdez and Teran. The jury rejected that claim, and the final judgment did not award indemnity to AEP.
Electrical Injuries
Electrical Shock
High Voltage
Electric Power Lines
Construction Accidents
Construction Engineering
Safety Engineering
Worker Safety
Geotechnical Engineering, +4
Construction
Industrial Hygiene, +7
Construction