Eight-Year-Old Boy Killed at Baseball Field With Faulty Wiring

A tragedy in Tuscan, Arizona is developing into a difficult torts case. Deshun Glover was killed by electrocution after a baseball game in July. There appears to be a combination of negligent acts leading to the death as companies deny responsibility.

Parents noticed Glover standing in a puddle near a light and shaking after a game. When they tried to touch him, they received a shock. His father then took a running start and knocked him free of the electrical current but it was too late for the boy.

The most obvious culprit is a contractor, Flouresco Lighting Company, which reportedly did substandard work that led to the charging of the ground near the light. Even if FLC has an independent contractor contract, the city may still be viable if the court finds that this is a nondelegable duty as shown in Colmenares Vivas v. Sun Alliance Insurance Co.

A report shows that work done in September, 2007, by Flouresco was not properly completed. However, the report also found fault with Tucson Electric Power because it found that the accident was “exacerbated by a high impedance neutral at the TEP transformer secondary bushings. This high impedance neutral limited the current flow and prevented the 200 amp circuit breaker from tripping and eliminating the hazard.”

Thus, company A was negligent in creating the danger but company B was negligent in interfering with the circuit breaker, which would have minimized the resulting injury. That makes for a difficult legal and proximate causation question for a court.

For the full story, click here.

3 thoughts on “Eight-Year-Old Boy Killed at Baseball Field With Faulty Wiring”

  1. How sad for the family. The city needs to accept their responsibility. They in turn can punish the people that did the shoddy work. (purely an opinion)

  2. What an awful story. I agree, mespo.

    I am no electricity expert, but as I understand it the City owns the box and the problem originated with a part inside the box. Flouresco was responsible for the quality of the workmanship and the City is responsible, ultimately, for assuring public safety, foremost, and any inspection and future maintenance, by extension.

    Where was Code Enforcement on this one? You gotta have a permit last time I checked!

  3. JT:

    This tragedy was completely avoidable had the companies involved merely complied with local and state electrical codes. The City bears equal responsibility when it holds out recreation areas knowing full well that children are encouraged to frequent them. I think the case lies in nuisance and negligence, and (even in Virginia) with the notions of strict liability because of the ultra-hazardous nature of the management of electricity. I would have no tredipidation taking this case had it arisen here especially given that this State’s largest verdict (over 20 million dollars) involved a child severly injured by exposure to unprotected electrical conduits. Juries have no problem determining cause or assessing blame when a child is involved.

Comments are closed.