No Duty Owed by Private Utility Company to Remove Dead Tree in Right of Way to Prevent Accident
The Plaintiffs in McGlynn v. State of New Jersey, no. L-2-06 (App. Div. Jan. 3, 2014) claimed that Jersey Central Power and Light Company (“JCP&L”) owed a duty of care to remove vegetation in its right of way that posed a risk of harm to users of the highway. The Appellate Division found that no such duty existed.
The Plaintiffs asserted a negligence claim against JCP&L when a tree fell on their car as they were traveling on a rural road. It killed one occupant and injured the other three occupants. As the tree fell, it brought down power lines with it.
The tree was located on privately owned land, situated within JCP&L’s right-of-way. The tree was also in the right-of-way maintained by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (“NJDOT”). NJDOT would trim the trees in the right-of-way unless the work needed to be done was located near utility poles or power lines. Then NJDOT would contact the utility company to do the work.
The Appellate Division considered whether there was any duty owed by JCP&L to the plaintiffs. It was undisputed that JCP&L had a commitment to keep vegetation controlled to prevent interruptions in service. However, the court found that it would create an onerous burden to expand that commitment to include maintenance of vegetation for the benefit of passing motorists where this responsibility already exists on the individual property owner and NJDOT.
The Court pointed out that there was no contractual obligation of JCP&L to do more than to maintain its lines within its right-of-way so as to provide uninterrupted service. The obligation to monitor trees over hundreds of miles of roadway to ensure the safety of passing motorists would be overwhelming to a private entity.
Hence, the Appellate Division concluded that JCP&L’s failure to remove a dead tree from a stretch of woods, despite having such tragic consequences, was neither foreseeable, nor within the scope of its day-to-day activities. The Court found that this duty fell on the private landowner and NJDOT.
Our appeals courts often liberally construe the circumstances to impose a duty on a defendant so as to find a remedy for an injured party. Likely, because there were other culpable parties (the landowner and the NJDOT), the Appellate Division did not impose such a duty on this private utility company.
