The old maxim goes, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” The same rule applies to the legal field. If one court refuses your suit, appeal. If that doesn’t work, sue another defendant, maybe even your grandmother. It worked for one party and may well cost a lot of us a bit of cash.

In 1998, Joshua Jackson, then age 10, was playing video games when his mother urged him to go outside to fly his new kite. In typical Charlie Brown fashion, the kite got hung up on some power lines on the next-door property and well, you know what is coming next. The neighbor, who was his grandmother, wasn’t home. So, after trying to get the kite loose with a tree branch, Joshua found an aluminum pole. He was seriously injured when the pole touched the power line.

Joshua first sued Pacific Gas

&

Electric Co., but the trial court determined the utility was immune from liability for the injuries as a matter of law. California has a law that exempts property owners from most injuries suffered by others who come onto the land for recreational purposes. As the judge noted, the purpose of the law was to encourage private landowners to allow recreational use of their land without fear of liability for ordinary risks. Extraordinary negligence is another matter.

Joshua appealed to the state Appellate Court and state Supreme Court, but each one upheld the decision of the trial court.

So, try, try again. Josh sued his grandmother for negligently allowing power lines within his reach (with the help of an aluminum pole, of course). Before the trial commenced, his grandmother turned around and sued PG

&

E for indemnification should she be found liable for her grandson’s injuries on the grounds that the utility negligently allowed the lines to be within Joshua’s reach.

The general rule in such cases is that PG

&

E cannot be liable for the grandmother’s losses unless it was liable for the original injuries. PG

&

E argued that by statutory authority it was not liable for the injuries and asked the court to dismiss the grandmother’s complaint. The trial court agreed and the grandmother appealed.

As you read the decision handed down two weeks ago, it is clear the appellate court wants to keep PG

&

E in the case on the rationale that holding the grandmother alone liable for PG

&

E’s act of stringing lines across her property would be unfair. While several earlier cases seem to support PG

&

E’s argument that it can’t be held liable, the court determined that the grandmother had an argument based on the contractual agreement for a utility easement across her property.

This appeal was based on a summary judgment, so by reversing the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Court is telling the lower court to try the case. If at trial Joshua proves his grandmother was somehow negligently responsible for his injuries, she might be liable for his damages. If she can then prove PG

&

E was negligent in maintaining the lines properly across her property, ultimately it might be on the hook for Joshua’s damages.

It is, though, a long way from ultimately finding and assessing damages. Expect an appeal by PG

&

E of this decision to the state Supreme Court. If it upholds this decision, the trial would only then begin. Of course, PG

&

E will have to take over defending the grandmother from her grandson’s lawsuit because it cannot rely on the grandmother to fully defend herself if she will be indemnified by PG

&

E should she lose.

Following the trial, expect an appeal of the trial decision by whichever party loses, and an appeal of that appeal. If all goes against PG

&

E, expect an appeal of the level of damages assessed, and another appeal. The case has completed the fifth stage in court proceedings, with anywhere from two to 11 or more turns before the judges before the matter is finally resolved.

Meanwhile, Joshua is about 18 years old. The case, now eight years old, will take several more years to resolve, and PG

&

E will be bringing these types of cases as examples of why its contingent fund for lawsuits and liability needs to be supplemented through higher bills for me and thee.

If the rate increase is unsuccessful this time, we can be sure PG

&

E will be back to try, try again.

Pamela Case, a local freelance paralegal, is among a select group of local residents rotating their columns in the Saturday Tracy Press.