April 2003
By TS

Miller v. Lucent Techs., Inc., Pa., Phila. County C.C.P., No. 0011-1056, Feb. 7, 2003.

Miller, 46, and Reenock, 36, were employees of an electrical contractor that had been hired by Lucent Technologies to remove and replace equipment in a switchgear cabinet, a box measuring about four feet by 10 feet by six feet, that contains a switch used to control the destination of electricity for a facility. Lucent was supposed to have de-energized the switchgear cabinet before the work began. Although Lucent employees watched, they failed to detect a secondary power source–a feeder cable carrying more than 12,000 volts–that was routed through the same cabinet.

As Miller and Reenock began to work on the cabinet, a sudden arc explosion occurred, sending electricity traveling through the open air. Miller was inside the cabinet when the explosion happened. The electrical current passed through his body, ignited his clothing, and traveled out the back of his head. Reenock, who was standing just outside the cabinet, was burned by the thermal energy of the arc.

Miller suffered second- and third-degree burns to more than 60 percent of his body. He required 54 rounds of re-constructive surgery, and his medical expenses totaled $1.4 million. Reenock suffered second-degree burns to 20 percent of his body. Although he was back to work in six months, Reenock developed heightened anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder because of his experience. His medical expenses were $55,000.

Both men had been journeymen electricians earning about $45,000 annually. Miller is now completely disabled. His past lost income is estimated at about $135,000, and his future lost income will be about $675,000. Reenock’s lost wages were about $23,000. Both men’s wives suffered loss of consortium.

Miller, Reenock, and their wives contacted ATLA members Martin K. Brigham and Eunice Trevor, both of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and filed suit against Lucent. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant had violated industry safety standards, its own internal safety rules, and the contract for the project. Counsel’s research showed that, had just one switch on the cabinet been thrown, the electrical load would have been transferred from the switchgear cabinet to a companion transformer, making the cabinet safe for Miller and Reenock.

Defendant argued that it was understood at the job site that it was the contractor’s responsibility to make the work area safe. Defendant’s case was seemingly bolstered when the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a citation against the contractor but not against defendant.

Brigham and Trevor were able to counter defendant’s assertions by taking videotaped depositions of defendant’s employees who witnessed the tragedy. These workers unanimously said that electrical safety was, in fact, defendant’s responsibility. This was corroborated by the contract for the work, which stated that defendant retained the exclusive right and responsibility to de-energize the switchgear cabinet.

Plaintiff’s attorneys used a video settlement brochure to make their case during extensive pretrial mediation. In addition to the videotaped depositions, the brochure included detailed computer animation of the incident. “With a roomful of Lucent’s attorneys and adjusters, having Lucent’s employees up on the screen conceding to defendant’s safety violations was very powerful,” Brigham said, “particularly when coupled with video images of the injuries.”

Plaintiffs also showed that defendant’s electricians had observed Miller and Reenock without high-voltage testing equipment, personal protective equipment, or any insulating material to isolate the fuses. Despite this, defendant had not taken any steps to warn them about possible risks. Finally, plaintiffs demonstrated that several warnings mandated by the National Electrical Code–the comprehensive set of standards promulgated by the electrical engineering industry–had not been posted.

Defendant agreed to pay Miller and his wife $10.34 million, and to pay Reenock and his wife $665,000.

Plaintiffs’ experts were Gary Smullin, electrical engineering, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Vince Gallagher, safety, Stratford, New Jersey.

Defendant’s experts were Walter Farley, electrical engineering, Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, and Wendell Rust, federal safety standards compliance, Bourbon, Indiana.

“Though our clients suffered horrific injuries, they remained incredibly brave through the ups and downs of this litigation,” Brigham said. “Hopefully, Lucent will have learned that contractor safety should be a paramount concern rather than an afterthought, as it was here.”