$28 Million Verdict for Family of Duke Energy Lineman Killed by Rotted Pole Utilimap Failed to Inspect

In 2014, Keith Jester, a 43-year-old Duke Energy Ohio lineman, climbed a wooden utility pole in southwestern Ohio to replace a utility line. He and a coworker were harnessed roughly 22 feet off the ground when the pole splintered at its base, snapped from underground rot, and fell. Jester sustained internal injuries in the fall and died approximately one hour later.

The rot that brought the pole down had never been identified. Duke Energy had hired Utilimap Corporation, a specialty inspection company, to examine roughly 30,000 poles across southwestern Ohio for structural soundness. Inspectors skipped the pole that killed Jester because it sat on private property they considered inaccessible. The company never notified Duke Energy that the pole had been skipped. It billed Duke Energy for the inspection anyway and collected payment.

Christa Jester filed suit on behalf of her husband's estate. Duke Energy was dismissed before trial; Ohio's workers' compensation statutes shielded it as Keith Jester's employer. That left Utilimap as the sole defendant. Attorneys Peter Weinberger, Stuart Scott, and Jeremy Tor of Spangenberg Shibley and Liber presented evidence that Utilimap's failure to inspect the pole, combined with its false billing, directly caused Keith Jester's death.

After roughly two and a half weeks of trial, the jury returned a verdict on June 7, 2017. It found Utilimap 100 percent liable and awarded nearly $28 million in total damages, including approximately $24 million in noneconomic damages to compensate the family for the loss of Keith Jester's life and companionship.

The verdict did not stand in its original form. Utilimap appealed, arguing the trial court had wrongly barred it from presenting evidence of Duke Energy's potential negligence to the jury. The First District Court of Appeals agreed. In a November 2018 decision (2018-Ohio-4755), the court held that an immune employer's conduct can still be weighed in the fault-apportionment analysis under Ohio Revised Code Section 2307.23. It reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The appellate decision became a significant precedent on Ohio's 'empty chair' apportionment doctrine.