Facts

On May 17, 2016, David Perez, a 59-year-old, self-employed electrician (dba DP Electric) was called to service flickering lights at an Ashley Furniture outlet at a multi-tenant industrial property in Oakland. While he was changing a fuse in the main switch supplying the Ashley Furniture tenancy, the switch exploded in his face, burning him and Ashley employee Gary Mountain, who was standing next to him. The building owners/managers quickly brought in a crew of electricians to repair the damage, destroying potential evidence in the process. Mountain sued Perez.

In April 2018, David Perez and his wife Donna field a cross complaint against the self-managing property owners and the tenant, an Ashley Furniture subsidiary. At a site inspection, the defendants produced the subject switch that had exploded, a box about 8" square. There, it was discovered that the switch was underrated for the panel in which the property owners had installed it. The landlord and tenant sued David Perez in cross-actions for indemnity.

CROSS-DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Cross-Defendants all sued Perez, claiming indemnity for what they paid Gary Mountain in settlement. They claimed that Perez had no right to access the main panel where the arc flash occurred; that Perez failed to notice that the switch was an illegal installation and was otherwise negligent; that Perez should have worn Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to change the fuse. They disputed damages, claiming that Perez had recovered fully from his injuries. Jeremy Blanchard also claimed he was new on the job at the time of the arc flash and uninvolved. The tenant Cross-Defendant Stoneledge Furniture claimed it was a new tenant and had no responsibility for inspecting, discovering, removing, or warning Perez of the hazard trap.

DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT CONTENTIONS: Defendant Cross-Complainant Perez contended that the cause of the explosion was the switch that Perez was lawfully operating at the time of the arc flash. Because the switch was underrated for use in the 480-volt panel in which it had been installed - it was rated for use in panels running up to only half that voltage - it was unable to contain the arc. Moreover, because it was visually indistinct from the switches installed alongside it, it was a hidden hazard trap. The property owners and managers were real estate investors who bought the property in 1989 when it was already 30 years old. They performed no inspections or preventive maintenance over the 27 years between the purchase and the arc flash explosion in 2016. They had installed the subject switch illegally, without a permit, and had made other illegal, unpermitted, and hazardous installations elsewhere on the property that also contributed to the arc flash explosion.

Damages

David Perez claimed only noneconomic damages for his personal injuries. His wife, Donna Perez, claimed damages for loss of consortium.

Injuries

David Perez suffered second and third degree burns to his face, chest, and dominant right hand and arm. For his arm, he required skin grafts harvested from his right thigh. He also required multiple laser treatments to break down the scar tissue on his arm. Although he returned to working as an electrical contractor within weeks of his discharge from the hospital, he was able to do so only by delegating the work to assistants he supervises. David Perez continues to suffer from impaired use of his right hand and wrist. He suffers ongoing pains and chronic discomfort in the areas of his body that were burned or served as the donor site for his grafts. He has experienced a significantly diminished quality of life from his permanent injuries.

Result

Verdict of $20,500,000 for David Perez and $5,000,000 for Donna Perez for Loss of Consortium.

Poll

12-0 (on liability against Carson Madrona Company, LLC (50%)); 12-0 (on liability against James L. Krasne, Trustee of the Diane Pregerson Glazer Survivor's Trust dba SanOak Management Company (50%)); 12-0 (that Perez was not negligent); 12-0 (on all damages amounts); 12-0 (that Jeremy Blanchard was not negligent); 9-3 (that Stoneledge was negligent); 12-0 (that the negligence of Stoneledge was not a substantial factor in causing Perez's harm)