Richard Lee Johnson, age 30, was found dead on the job. No apparent cause of his death could be found. The death of this young man who left a surviving wife and young child, was a complete mystery. Mrs. Johnson, following the death of her husband, could not bring herself to dispose of his clothes he was wearing when he died. This clothing, along with a pair of shoes, was stored in the family garage. In the course of the investigation, the existence of the deceased's clothing was discovered. In an intensive interview with Mrs. Johnson, the clothing was obtained, examined, and the pair of socks and shoes which Mr. Johnson had been wearing told a tragic story.

Richard Lee Johnson, a painter by trade, was found dead on the flat roof of a building where he had been working. His body lay under a high voltage power line. A 22-foot aluminum ladder that he had been using was lying nearby. There were no burns on the ladder, power line, or Johnson's body to indicate contact with electric current. He was survived by a widow and two small children.

Mr. Johnson and other members of a crew had painted a building with one coat of paint and had begun the second coat, with Johnson repeating the work he had done in applying the first coat. They were working on a flat roof of the building. The wall of the building ran north and south. Parallel to the wall and twenty feet above the flat roof was an Arkansas Power & Light Company primary conductor carrying high voltage electricity. There were no trees or anything in the vicinity to obscure a view of the wires. The weather was clear on the day of the accident.

Mr. Johnson was using an aluminum ladder extended to twenty-two feet and an electric spray painting machine. Working with him was Robert Cochran, another painter. The two had painted along the west side of the building, going from north to south. While Mr. Cochran went down to the ground to get more paint, Mr. Johnson picked up the ladder, holding it vertically, and proceeded south with the ladder to go around the corner of the second level of the building.

While on the ground, Mr. Cochran heard Mr. Johnson make a groaning noise. He ran around the building and up a ladder to the flat roof. When he arrived, Mr. Johnson was lying on the roof on his back at the south side of the building. The aluminum ladder had fallen and was hanging from the side of the building, tangled in telephone lines. There were no burn marks on the ladder or on any of the high voltage power line wires. There were no burns on Mr. Johnson's hands or any indication that Mr. Johnson had come into contact with the power line.

When Mr. Cochran arrived, Mr. Johnson was breathing irregularly. Artificial respiration was given, but he died shortly thereafter. An autopsy was performed. Blood alcohol examination indicated a .06% weight volume. The autopsy finding was myocardial ischemia with early myocardial necrosis. The secondary diagnosis was fatty degeneration of the liver, severe, associated with early cirrhosis of the liver; the third, pulmonary congestion, acute; and the fourth, status post-operative fracture of the skull and craniotomy: (a) plastic cranial plate left frontal bone, and (b) focal cordical encephalomalacia.
The medical examiner testified that he had examined the body for markings and found a pale, brownish-yellow unbiligated lesion on the right foot at the base of the little toe. The examiner considered this lesion a wart. He testified:

"For a period of a couple of years, I did have a good deal of doubt in my mind as to what had actually happened to Mr. Johnson and as to what might have caused his death. I did think initially that this was a wart on his toe. On the initial slide that I examined, I did not see features that I would associate with an electrical mark."

Two years after Mr. Johnson's death, evidence was discovered which caused the medical examiner to recheck his findings.

LET THE FACTS BE KNOWN AS THEY ARE, AND THE LAW WILL SPRING FROM THE SEED AND TURN ITS BRANCHES TOWARDS THE LIGHT.

In the process of investigating the case, we discovered that approximately two months after the death of Richard Johnson, Earl Looper, a roofer, working with a 22-foot aluminum ladder and moving around the southern corner of the roof of the same building (the identical spot where Mr. Johnson had been working) received a severe electrical shock that rendered him unconscious. Fortunately, Looper survived. There were no electrical marks on the power line or on the aluminum ladder. Nor were there electrical burns on Looper's hands. Having discovered this subsequent shock incident, we reviewed the autopsy findings with the state medical examiner. He had kept the slides he had made of the lesion on Johnson's right little toe. Upon our request, he went back to the lab and made a minute microscopic examination of the slides. The state medical examiner testified as to his findings:
It was only in the last few months that I did what is known as step section. That is take a section and cut it deeper all the way through the entire lesion and then we have about ten or fifteen slides to look at. It was only on the fourth or fifth slide of this step section that I began to see what I associate with an electrical burn. I am convinced that what was on the right toe was evidence of some kind of electrical burn.

When we first learned of the medical examiner's "step section" tests and his conclusion that the lesion was, in fact, an electrical burn, we began a search for Richard Johnson's shoes and socks. The medical examiner no longer had them. Perhaps they had been thrown away. However, there was a possibility that they had been returned to the family. We contacted Mrs. Johnson. Her husband's personal effects, including the clothing he was wearing at the time of his death, had been returned to her. She would search for them. As fortune would have it, she could not bear to discard the bag containing her husband's clothing, so she placed it in a closet, where it had remained. She retrieved the shoes and socks. We submitted them to the medical examiner. The right shoe had small perforated holes in the area of the little toe. One of the socks had a burned hole which corresponded to the hole in the shoe. These facts, plus the minute examination of the lesion section slides and the subsequent injury of Earl Looper, persuaded the medical examiner to reach the conclusion that Richard Johnson's death was due to electrocution.
We also called Dr. J. T. Francisco, a noted pathologist in Memphis, Tennessee, as a witness. He testified that in his opinion Richard Johnson's death was caused by contact with a high powered electrical current. His conclusion was based upon two main factors:
No. 1, no recognizable or identifiable cause of death is present in the autopsy examination, such as stroke, heart attack or things of that nature. Secondly, the finding of the very characteristic burn that is present on the skin. This type of burn is different from the ordinary thermal burn, such as one you get from a hot coal or stove or something of that nature, primarily because the electrical current as it passes into or out of a body produces very rapidly and very quickly an extreme degree of heat at the point at which it either enters or leaves the body. Now this extreme degree of heat literally cooks the tissue; cooks the point of the skin in a very characteristic manner.

Dr. Francisco blew up the slides and used those to demonstrate his findings to the jury:
The bottom of the slide is in fact the top of the skin, the keratin layer. The clear areas that are present are actually bubbles of fluid in which the high heat produced by the electrical current has boiled away the water from inside the cells and deposited it between the cells and the keratin layers, so that each one of these lakes is in fact a form of blister on the surface of the skin produced by the passage of this very high heat-producing current through the skin.1

To show that Richard Johnson's death was caused by a high voltage current of electricity, we also offered in evidence the testimony of Earl Looper, relating how at the same place where Richard Johnson's body had been found, in an effort to maneuver a 22-foot aluminum ladder around the corner of the building in close proximity to the power lines, as Richard Johnson had done, he received a severe shock which rendered him unconscious. Looper's testimony was offered to show causation and the existence of a hazardous condition. The trial court, Circuit Judge Tom Digby, overruled the power company's objection to this evidence.
The jury returned a substantial verdict for the widow and children of Richard Johnson.
The power company appealed the verdict on two grounds:
1. that the admissibility of Earl Looper's testimony was an error; and

2. that the power company, having established that it had complied with the National Electrical Code regarding the installation and maintenance of the power lines, was, as a matter of law, entitled to a directed verdict.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that since the power company had stipulated that the conditions at the accident scene were the same at the time of trial as at the time of Richard Johnson's death, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the subsequent accident as proof of what had happened to Richard Johnson.
The Court further held that even though the power company had complied with the standards set forth by the National Electrical Code, these were minimum standards, and there were circumstances and conditions under which a higher standard in construction and maintenance of the power lines should be observed. The court held that the jury could have found that in this case, the power company's failure to meet higher standards than those required by the National Electrical Code was a violation of the standard of care to which power companies are held in the transmission of high-powered electrical currents.
This case had to be tried twice. The jury in both trials returned substantially the same amount of money. In the first trial, the jury had returned an award solely for the benefit of the estate. Richard Johnson had been killed instantly and experienced no pain and suffering, and the expenses related to his death were nominal. The jury had clearly intended that this sum of money go to the widow and children. The verdict in the first trial was set aside by the trial judge, and a new trial granted, resulting in an award for the widow and children of Richard Johnson.

A lesson to be learned by trial lawyers: when discussing with the jury the various elements of damages which are being claimed and in discussing answers to interrogatories with jurors, we need to be careful, thorough and explicit, in order that the jury may not be confused about what they are required to do. In the first trial, we clearly had failed to explain to the jury how the damages, should they find for the plaintiff, should be allocated.

An example of how interrogatories may confuse a jury is a case which we tried in Dardanelle, Arkansas. the case had been submitted to the jury on interrogatories. The jury, after a long time, knocked on the door and had the bailiff deliver a message to the court that they had a question. The judge thereupon had the jury brought in and lined up in front of the jury box. He demanded to know what the problem was. The foreman responded: "Your Honor, we are confused over these interrogatories. We know a lawyer across the river in Russellville. Could we have him come over here and explain them to us?" We had failed to explain to the jury the meaning of the interrogatories they would be required to answer. In self-defense, nobody understood these interrogatories, not even the judge.
_____________________
1 For the direct examination of Dr. Francisco, see "Art of Advocacy," by Scott Baldwin, 1981, No. 23-1.

2 Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Johnson, 260 Ark. 237, 538 S.W.2d 541, 546 (1976) (Special Judge
Walter Niblock).

3 Questions submitted to the jury by the Court to det4ermine the jury's finding of facts in the case.