# Otte v. Dayton Power & Light Co.

> Ohio Supreme Court · May 25, 1988 · 37 Ohio St. 3d 33

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760259

## Case

- **Full name:** Otte v. Dayton Power & Light Company
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 25, 1988
- **Citations:** 37 Ohio St. 3d 33; 523 N.E.2d 835; 1988 Ohio LEXIS 140
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Locher
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 58 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760259

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the jury found the plaintiff-farmer 49 percent at fault and the defendant-utility 51 percent at fault

## Opinion text

Locher, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in Parts I and IV of today’s decision. I also agree *42 with the syllabus. However, I cannot agree that a public utility necessarily meets the required “higher degree of care” test simply by following industry standards such as the National Electric Safety Code. The majority’s position is inferred from my interpretation of Parts II and III of the majority opinion.
In Kohli v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 12, 14-15 , 18 OBR 10, 12, 479 N.E. 2d 840, 842 , this court stated:
“Parenthetically, we would also remind the utilities that the range of their responsibilities to the public is not limited solely by industry standards and commission regulations. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted in Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Behymer (1903), 189 U.S. 468 , 470: ‘What usually is done may be evidence of what ought to be done, but what ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not.’ With respect to a power company the standard is not merely reasonable prudence but is ‘the highest degree of care.’ Hetrick v. Marion-Reserve Power Co. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 347 [ 25 O.O. 467 ], paragraph two of the syllabus.” (Emphasis added.)
While the majority opinion reinforces this court’s adoption of the “highest degree of care” standard for power companies, it is my view that Part II and a portion of Part III of the opinion read in conjunction with Kohli, supra, send a mixed signal to the bench and bar of this state.
As a result, I concur separately and also reiterate the statement made in the last sentence of Kohli , urging utilities to “warn their consumers of the potential dangers of neutral-to-earth voltage.” Id. at 15 , 18 OBR at 12, 479 N.E. 2d at 843 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760259. Public record. Not legal advice.