Legal Opinion

Puget Sound Power and Light Co. v. Strong

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 19, 1991No. 57754-4PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDurham, J.

The issue presented here is the proper measure of damages for a negligently destroyed utility pole: the full replacement cost or the replacement cost less depreciation based on the life of the pole. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's conclusion that an offset for depreciation is appropriate. Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Strong, 59 Wn. App. 430, 798 P.2d 1162 (1990). We reverse.

On January 6, 1984, Gerald Strong negligently drove his car into a Puget Sound Power and Light Company (Puget Power) utility pole and destroyed it. Puget Power replaced the pole and sought payment from…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Burr v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Mieske v. Bartell Drug Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1979
  3. New Jersey Power & Light Co. v. MabeeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1964
  4. Central Illinois Light Co. v. StenzelAppellate Court of Illinois · 1963
  5. Carolina Power & Light Company v. PaulSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kirk v. Mt. Airy Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Goodman v. Boeing CompanyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994
  3. Barney v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994
  4. United States v. Crown Equipment CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
  5. Portland General Electric Co. v. TaberCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API