BARTLE v. POLY ENTERPRISES (2022)

Parties, Claim, Trial

Plaintiffs filed the instant action on February 14, 2022, seeking $4,152 in damages against the Defendant Poly Enterprises for damage caused to their underground electric cable during installation of a fence. The matter ultimately proceeded to trial on April 21, 2022.

Facts

There was no substantial factual difference in the testimony. There was some disagreement about whether or not the homeowners approved the actual location of fence in proximity to the marked underground electrical lines. The essential disagreement is about whether or not the Defendant is liable for damage electrical wires that are damaged during the course of a fence installation. This Court does not find it necessary to decide whether or not the homeowner approved the location of the fence because the Defendant would still have a duty to keep from breaching the electrical lines. It is uncontroverted that the Defendant installed the fence on or about August 4, 2021. It is also uncontroverted that the Plaintiffs lost electricity on or about October 11, 2021. Plaintiff then paid $712.08 for four nights at a hotel. Plaintiffs also paid $3,440 to Engler Electric Inc to identify and remedy the problem with the electric. The invoice for the installation indicate the problem with the electric was that the underground line was allegedly damaged by the fence installation.

Discussion

This Court must now determine whether or not the Defendant is liable for damage to an underground electric line during the course of a fence installation. The Court must adjudicate the claim in in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law (Uniform City Ct Act § 1804).

This Court finds that the Defendant Poly Enterprises owed a duty to install the fence in a safe and workmanlike manner. This Court further finds that this duty was breached when the electric line near one of the footings became compromised and caused the electric line to stop working. This Court also finds that the improper fence installation was a substantial factor in the line's failure. The next question is as it relates to damages. In this case, the damages are substantial and the repairs seem to have put the property in a better position than it was before the repairs. Before the repair the line was laying in the ground without a protective barrier. Following the repair the line was placed in PVC conduit so that it is now protected to some extent from a second breach.

“If the injury is not so great as to make the reparation or restoration of the property unreasonable or out of proportion to the condition and value thereof before the injury, the reasonable cost of repairs necessary to put the article in the condition in which it was before the injury will be considered the proper measure of damages. Indeed, in a given case, the cost of repairs which restore the property to its former condition may well be the best criterion of diminution in value. However, recovery on the basis of the reasonable cost of repairs to restore the property to its former condition is permitted subject to two limitations: (1) that the cost of repairs must be less than the diminution in the market value due to the injury; and (2) that the repairs must not exceed the value of the property as it was before the injury. The plaintiff is not entitled to benefit by the loss ․ [W]here repairs place the property in a better condition than before the accident, the increased value of the repaired article above its value before the accident may be deducted from the cost of repairs” (36 NY Jur 2d, Damages § 83).

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the underground electric cable didn't have a protective “conduit”. After the repair, the line was place in a PVC “conduit” pursuant to the current building codes. This places the Plaintiffs in a better position than they were prior to the accident because now not only do the Plaintiffs have electricity supply to their home, they have it supplied in a protective PVC “conduit”. Although the Court finds that that the Defendant's actions are a substantial factor with respect to the damage, this Court is not willing to place the entire electrical upgrade on the Defendant's shoulders because it would place the Plaintiffs in a slightly better position than they were in before the breach. Unfortunately, the invoice from Engler Electric Inc does not list the individual cost for each of the materials separately, nor does it detail the labor for each stage of the work separately. There was also no testimony with respect to the value of the Plaintiff's home before and after the electrical upgrades excluding the value of the fence. After reviewing all the evidence, assessing the credibility of witnesses, and applying the rules of substantive law, this Court finds that substantial justice is best accomplished by awarding a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff while applying a $1,000 reduction in Plaintiff's direct damages. The Plaintiff's direct damages are $3,440 for electrical repair and $712.08 in consequential damages for hotel accommodations during the four day period they were without electricity in their home. After applying a $1,000 reduction, judgment will be against the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiffs in the amount of $3,152.08 without costs because the Defendant was successful in reducing the overall amount of the damages.

Order

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Judgment will be entered against the Defendant in the amount of $3,152.08; and

2. No costs will be awarded because the Defendant was successful in reducing the amount of the calculated damages.

This is the Decision and Order of the Court.

Joshua P. Bannister, J.