Electrical injuries rarely come from a single mistake. They usually follow a warning someone ignored, a safeguard someone left out, or old equipment no one inspected. Christopher L. Beard has handled more than a dozen electrocution and electrical injury claims in Maryland. Four of his cases show the different parties the law can hold responsible when electricity injures or kills someone.
In 2013, a master electrician and crew foreman for an electrical contractor arrived at a Maryland hotel to replace a 1,200-amp, 600-volt switch in the hotel's main switchboard. The switch would not move to the open position. While he put on his protective suit before inspecting it, the equipment exploded.
He suffered second and third degree burns to his face, arms, ears, and neck, along with burns to his airway. Several surgeries followed, together with hearing evaluations and treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He received workers' compensation benefits, and he also sued the hotel.
The claim rested on what the hotel knew. An infrared study the hotel had commissioned two years earlier found the switch running at about 159 degrees Fahrenheit and reported that no re-torque or ground fault testing had occurred in eleven years. The following year, the contractor told the hotel in writing that the switch had to be replaced. The hotel then scheduled and cancelled as many as six return service calls.
The case drew on National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70B, the recommended practice for electrical equipment maintenance. Mr. Beard retained an electrical engineer who investigates fires and explosions, and a forensic pathologist with long experience in electrical injuries. Owners who control their own equipment must warn a contractor's workers of hidden dangers they know about, a duty the Court of Appeals described in Le Vonas v. Acme Paper Board Co., 184 Md. 16 (1944).
In 2017, a licensed aesthetician with years of training on laser hair removal was using a laser system in a dermatology office. Within the first minute, the device made a loud boom, flashed, and gave off black smoke. Current surged through the handpiece into her right hand, and the muscle contraction kept her from letting go for about ten seconds.
She suffered electrical burns and later developed complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a chronic pain condition that required nerve block injections, therapy, and psychological care. The manufacturer's representative blamed user error, but her supervising dermatologist disputed that, since she had used the same type of laser safely for years.
The suit against the manufacturer raised negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and design defect claims. The design claim focused on what the device lacked: an automatic cutoff, breaker, or similar mechanism to protect the user's hand if the handpiece became electrified. A manufacturer answers for a product that leaves its control in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition, even when the injured person's employer bought it.
In 2015, a painter who owned his own painting company was caulking the roof of a nineteenth century multi-unit building in Baltimore. He partially entered a small enclosure over a skylight and touched the metal housing of a light fixture energized at 120 volts. He died from electrocution, and his family brought suit against the owner.
The fixture ran on century-old knob-and-tube wiring with no ground wire, and its insulation had broken down from years of water leaking into the enclosure. A 25-amp fuse sat where a 15-amp fuse belonged, so the circuit never shut off. The owner testified that she had never had an electrician inspect the skylight wiring, although the ceiling beneath it needed repeated repairs for water damage.
The family's case argued that an owner who sees water reaching her wiring year after year has reason to call an electrician, a point the defense's own engineer conceded in deposition. A related claim addressed the electrician who had worked on the house.
The defense argued that the painter caused his own death. To succeed on that kind of defense, Maryland requires proof that the injured person knew or should have known of the specific electrical danger, as the Court of Appeals explained in Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Flippo, 348 Md. 680 (1998). A painter with no electrical training had no reason to expect a fixture's metal housing to carry current.
In 2002, a construction laborer was chipping concrete in a trench at a Maryland airport construction project. His jackhammer struck an energized underground electrical line, and he died from his injuries. His widow brought wrongful death and survival claims.
The suit named the construction manager rather than his employer. The construction manager had contracted with the state to manage, inspect, and enforce safety on the multi-employer site. The complaint alleged that it failed to enforce the federal excavation and electrical safety rules that require locating underground lines and protecting workers who use jackhammers near them.
Each case turned on a party other than the injured worker's own employer: a hotel that ignored its equipment, a manufacturer that left out a safeguard, a property owner who never inspected old wiring, and a construction manager that took on site safety. Maryland's workers' compensation law does not bar a claim against a negligent third party, so an injured worker can often pursue both.
Electrical cases also depend heavily on experts. Electrical engineers, master electricians, and forensic pathologists can explain how current traveled, why a fuse or breaker failed to stop it, and what the responsible party knew beforehand. Records such as maintenance logs, service tickets, and inspection reports often decide whether a warning reached the people who could have acted on it.
Under Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article Section 5-101, a person generally must file a Maryland injury claim within three years. A wrongful death claim generally must be filed within three years of the death. Owners and contractors often repair or discard equipment soon after an incident, so preserve the device, the panel, and the records early.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case. To discuss an electrocution or electrical explosion claim, e-mail chris@attorneybeard.com or call (410) 267-0227. You can also read our ten tips for an electrical accident or electrocution case.
