Loading
Utilities
8 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Electrical Engineering, Occupational Safety And Health (OSHA), Construction Management, Human Factors, Energy
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. District of Kansas
Court:
Michael Rowan v. Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, et al. involved a personal injury claim filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiff, Michael Rowan, filed suit against Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (the transmission line operator), Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC (the owner), and Power Constructors, Inc. (the general contractor overseeing the work). At the time of the incident, Rowan was employed by subcontractor Track Utilities, LLC. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Power Constructors, ruling that the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision applied. Claims against Sunflower and Mid-Kansas proceeded to trial.
The electrical accident occurred on August 29, 2013, during a utility line project near Medicine Lodge, Kansas. Rowan was installing a guard structure beneath an energized overhead transmission line when contact with a live wire caused electrical injuries. The jury found comparative fault among several parties: 23% to Rowan, 15% to Sunflower, 29% to Power Constructors, and 33% to Track Utilities. Total damages were assessed at $4,082,382.59, with the court later reducing Sunflower’s liability to $612,357.39 based on Kansas’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages and comparative fault rules
While working on a transmission line project near Medicine Lodge, Kansas, Michael Rowan suffered serious electrical injuries. He was employed by Track Utilities, LLC, which had been subcontracted by Power Constructors, Inc. to build a section of the 138kV line between Barber and Flat Ridge substations. On that day, Rowan and his crew were erecting a guard structure beneath an energized and uninsulated overhead line. A wooden pole came into contact with the live wire, resulting in an electrical shock to Rowan.
Michael Rowan filed a negligence lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, naming Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC, and Power Constructors, Inc. as defendants. The case was docketed as No. 2:15-cv-09227-JWL. Rowan alleged that the defendants failed to coordinate safety efforts, properly manage worksite responsibilities, and communicate hazards relating to energized equipment.
Power Constructors, Inc. filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s “confidential” designation of deposition transcripts from witnesses James Stovall and Randal Miller. The court found the confidentiality claims untimely and overly broad, determining the transcripts did not meet the standard under the parties’ protective order. The motion was granted, and the designations were removed.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of Power Constructors, Inc., concluding that it was protected under the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision. As Rowan’s statutory employer through subcontracting relationships, Power was found immune from tort liability. The court denied summary judgment motions by Sunflower and Mid-Kansas, determining that factual disputes over breach of duty and foreseeability precluded dismissal.
The court ruled on a motion to exclude parts of the expert testimony of Dr. Mark Kroll. Dr. Kroll’s qualifications were not at issue; rather, the motion focused on limiting the scope of his opinions relating to medical causation and industry safety standards. The court granted the motion in part, allowing some opinions while excluding others as speculative or outside the scope of his expertise.
After a trial on the remaining claims, the jury found Sunflower 15% at fault and Mid-Kansas 0% at fault. Plaintiff Michael Rowan was found 23% at fault, while Power Constructors and Track Utilities were assigned 29% and 33% of the fault, respectively. The jury awarded total damages of $4,082,382.59, including economic and noneconomic losses, but no punitive damages were granted.
Following post-trial motions, the court applied Kansas’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages and principles of comparative fault. Sunflower’s liability was reduced from the jury’s total award to $612,357.39. The court denied Sunflower’s motion to alter the verdict and entered final judgment accordingly.
The judge denied Sunflower’s request to overturn the jury’s verdict and Rowan’s request for a new trial, meaning the jury’s original findings remained in place. The court also rejected Sunflower’s motion to deposit the payment with the court rather than paying Rowan directly. With no further motions pending and the judgment finalized, this marked the official legal closure of the case, confirming Sunflower’s liability and ending all post-trial proceedings.
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
Case Name:
Michael Rowan v. Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, et al.
Electrical Injuries
Electrical Accidents
Electrical Shock
Electrocutions
Electric Power Lines
Utility Construction
Construction Accidents
Worker Safety
Safety Engineering
Causation Analysis
Michael Rowan v. Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, et al. involved a personal injury claim filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiff, Michael Rowan, filed suit against Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (the transmission line operator), Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC (the owner), and Power Constructors, Inc. (the general contractor overseeing the work). At the time of the incident, Rowan was employed by subcontractor Track Utilities, LLC. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Power Constructors, ruling that the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision applied. Claims against Sunflower and Mid-Kansas proceeded to trial.
The electrical accident occurred on August 29, 2013, during a utility line project near Medicine Lodge, Kansas. Rowan was installing a guard structure beneath an energized overhead transmission line when contact with a live wire caused electrical injuries. The jury found comparative fault among several parties: 23% to Rowan, 15% to Sunflower, 29% to Power Constructors, and 33% to Track Utilities. Total damages were assessed at $4,082,382.59, with the court later reducing Sunflower’s liability to $612,357.39 based on Kansas’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages and comparative fault rules
While working on a transmission line project near Medicine Lodge, Kansas, Michael Rowan suffered serious electrical injuries. He was employed by Track Utilities, LLC, which had been subcontracted by Power Constructors, Inc. to build a section of the 138kV line between Barber and Flat Ridge substations. On that day, Rowan and his crew were erecting a guard structure beneath an energized and uninsulated overhead line. A wooden pole came into contact with the live wire, resulting in an electrical shock to Rowan.
Michael Rowan filed a negligence lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, naming Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC, and Power Constructors, Inc. as defendants. The case was docketed as No. 2:15-cv-09227-JWL. Rowan alleged that the defendants failed to coordinate safety efforts, properly manage worksite responsibilities, and communicate hazards relating to energized equipment.
Power Constructors, Inc. filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s “confidential” designation of deposition transcripts from witnesses James Stovall and Randal Miller. The court found the confidentiality claims untimely and overly broad, determining the transcripts did not meet the standard under the parties’ protective order. The motion was granted, and the designations were removed.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of Power Constructors, Inc., concluding that it was protected under the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision. As Rowan’s statutory employer through subcontracting relationships, Power was found immune from tort liability. The court denied summary judgment motions by Sunflower and Mid-Kansas, determining that factual disputes over breach of duty and foreseeability precluded dismissal.
The court ruled on a motion to exclude parts of the expert testimony of Dr. Mark Kroll. Dr. Kroll’s qualifications were not at issue; rather, the motion focused on limiting the scope of his opinions relating to medical causation and industry safety standards. The court granted the motion in part, allowing some opinions while excluding others as speculative or outside the scope of his expertise.
After a trial on the remaining claims, the jury found Sunflower 15% at fault and Mid-Kansas 0% at fault. Plaintiff Michael Rowan was found 23% at fault, while Power Constructors and Track Utilities were assigned 29% and 33% of the fault, respectively. The jury awarded total damages of $4,082,382.59, including economic and noneconomic losses, but no punitive damages were granted.
Following post-trial motions, the court applied Kansas’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages and principles of comparative fault. Sunflower’s liability was reduced from the jury’s total award to $612,357.39. The court denied Sunflower’s motion to alter the verdict and entered final judgment accordingly.
The judge denied Sunflower’s request to overturn the jury’s verdict and Rowan’s request for a new trial, meaning the jury’s original findings remained in place. The court also rejected Sunflower’s motion to deposit the payment with the court rather than paying Rowan directly. With no further motions pending and the judgment finalized, this marked the official legal closure of the case, confirming Sunflower’s liability and ending all post-trial proceedings.
1. Electrical Injuries Expert Witness
2. Electrical Engineering Expert Witness
3. Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) Expert Witness
4. Construction Management Expert Witness
5. Human Factors Expert Witness
6. Electrical Accidents Expert Witness
1. Leverage Comparative Fault to Manage Risk Exposure
In multi-party injury cases involving construction or utility environments, carefully apportioning fault can significantly reduce a client’s liability. In Rowan, although the jury awarded over $4 million, Sunflower’s financial responsibility was reduced based on its 15% share of fault. Attorneys should prepare strong factual defenses that frame client actions as proportionally limited relative to other parties.
2. Understand the Limits of the Workers’ Compensation Bar
Power Constructors was dismissed through a successful summary judgment by invoking the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision. When defending contractors, explore statutory employer defenses early to potentially eliminate liability. Courts may apply these protections if proper subcontractor relationships are clearly established and documented.
3. Prepare for Challenges to Expert Witness Admissibility
Dr. Mark Kroll’s expert testimony was partially excluded, illustrating the importance of tailoring expert opinions to withstand Daubert scrutiny. Attorneys must ensure that expert testimony is well-supported, within scope, and not speculative. Early vetting and preparation can prevent exclusion of critical evidence at trial.
4. Address OSHA and NFPA Compliance in Discovery
Workplace safety regulations played an implicit role in evaluating liability tied to the energized work environment. Attorneys should gather detailed records on OSHA compliance, training logs, and utility safety procedures during discovery. Demonstrating adherence or exposing failures can significantly influence liability findings.
5. Be Strategic in Handling Statutory Damage Caps
Kansas law caps noneconomic damages in personal injury claims, which impacted the final judgment against Sunflower. Attorneys should account for these caps when calculating damages during settlement talks or trial preparation. Understanding when and how courts apply these limits can shape case valuation and strategy.
The Rowan v. Sunflower Electric Power Corporation case underscores the legal complexity surrounding workplace injury litigation involving multiple contractors and utility companies. From pre-trial motions through final judgment, the litigation demonstrated the importance of clearly defining safety responsibilities, contractual relationships, and procedural compliance in large-scale construction projects. The case also highlights how expert testimony, when properly admitted, can influence causation analysis and damage assessments in federal court.
More broadly, the case serves as a critical example for attorneys handling lawsuits involving electrical accidents at utility or construction sites. Legal teams must be prepared to address comparative fault, regulatory compliance, and the interplay between engineering systems and human injury. Forensically supported analysis, combined with strategic use of statutory defenses and damage caps, can play a pivotal role in shaping outcomes in electrocution and electrical injury litigation.
What happened in the Rowan v. Sunflower Electric case?
Michael Rowan was injured by an electrical shock while working on a utility construction project in Kansas. He filed a lawsuit against multiple companies involved in the project, including Sunflower Electric and Mid-Kansas Electric. The case focused on negligence, fault allocation, and workplace safety procedures.
Who was found at fault in the Rowan electrical injury lawsuit?
The jury assigned 15% fault to Sunflower Electric, 23% to Rowan, 29% to Power Constructors, and 33% to Track Utilities. Mid-Kansas Electric was found to have 0% fault. The distribution of fault directly impacted the damages awarded.
How much was awarded to Michael Rowan in damages?
The jury awarded a total of $4,082,382.59 in damages, covering medical expenses, economic losses, and non-economic losses. Due to Kansas’s comparative fault rules and statutory damage caps, Sunflower’s liability was reduced to approximately $612,000. The final amount reflected only their share of responsibility.
Why was Power Constructors dismissed from the lawsuit?
Power Constructors was granted summary judgment based on Kansas’s Workers’ Compensation Act. The court ruled that Power qualified as a statutory employer, making them immune from further tort claims. This defense is commonly used in contractor-subcontractor injury disputes.
What legal issues were central to this electrical accident case?
Key issues included negligence, workplace safety compliance, and the proper application of Kansas’s comparative fault and statutory cap laws. The case also involved procedural challenges over admissibility of evidence and allocation of responsibility. Each issue influenced the final outcome and amount of damages.
1. Electrical Injuries Expert Witness
2. Electrical Engineering Expert Witness
3. Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) Expert Witness
4. Construction Management Expert Witness
5. Human Factors Expert Witness
6. Electrical Accidents Expert Witness
1. Leverage Comparative Fault to Manage Risk Exposure
In multi-party injury cases involving construction or utility environments, carefully apportioning fault can significantly reduce a client’s liability. In Rowan, although the jury awarded over $4 million, Sunflower’s financial responsibility was reduced based on its 15% share of fault. Attorneys should prepare strong factual defenses that frame client actions as proportionally limited relative to other parties.
2. Understand the Limits of the Workers’ Compensation Bar
Power Constructors was dismissed through a successful summary judgment by invoking the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision. When defending contractors, explore statutory employer defenses early to potentially eliminate liability. Courts may apply these protections if proper subcontractor relationships are clearly established and documented.
3. Prepare for Challenges to Expert Witness Admissibility
Dr. Mark Kroll’s expert testimony was partially excluded, illustrating the importance of tailoring expert opinions to withstand Daubert scrutiny. Attorneys must ensure that expert testimony is well-supported, within scope, and not speculative. Early vetting and preparation can prevent exclusion of critical evidence at trial.
4. Address OSHA and NFPA Compliance in Discovery
Workplace safety regulations played an implicit role in evaluating liability tied to the energized work environment. Attorneys should gather detailed records on OSHA compliance, training logs, and utility safety procedures during discovery. Demonstrating adherence or exposing failures can significantly influence liability findings.
5. Be Strategic in Handling Statutory Damage Caps
Kansas law caps noneconomic damages in personal injury claims, which impacted the final judgment against Sunflower. Attorneys should account for these caps when calculating damages during settlement talks or trial preparation. Understanding when and how courts apply these limits can shape case valuation and strategy.
The Rowan v. Sunflower Electric Power Corporation case underscores the legal complexity surrounding workplace injury litigation involving multiple contractors and utility companies. From pre-trial motions through final judgment, the litigation demonstrated the importance of clearly defining safety responsibilities, contractual relationships, and procedural compliance in large-scale construction projects. The case also highlights how expert testimony, when properly admitted, can influence causation analysis and damage assessments in federal court.
More broadly, the case serves as a critical example for attorneys handling lawsuits involving electrical accidents at utility or construction sites. Legal teams must be prepared to address comparative fault, regulatory compliance, and the interplay between engineering systems and human injury. Forensically supported analysis, combined with strategic use of statutory defenses and damage caps, can play a pivotal role in shaping outcomes in electrocution and electrical injury litigation.
What happened in the Rowan v. Sunflower Electric case?
Michael Rowan was injured by an electrical shock while working on a utility construction project in Kansas. He filed a lawsuit against multiple companies involved in the project, including Sunflower Electric and Mid-Kansas Electric. The case focused on negligence, fault allocation, and workplace safety procedures.
Who was found at fault in the Rowan electrical injury lawsuit?
The jury assigned 15% fault to Sunflower Electric, 23% to Rowan, 29% to Power Constructors, and 33% to Track Utilities. Mid-Kansas Electric was found to have 0% fault. The distribution of fault directly impacted the damages awarded.
How much was awarded to Michael Rowan in damages?
The jury awarded a total of $4,082,382.59 in damages, covering medical expenses, economic losses, and non-economic losses. Due to Kansas’s comparative fault rules and statutory damage caps, Sunflower’s liability was reduced to approximately $612,000. The final amount reflected only their share of responsibility.
Why was Power Constructors dismissed from the lawsuit?
Power Constructors was granted summary judgment based on Kansas’s Workers’ Compensation Act. The court ruled that Power qualified as a statutory employer, making them immune from further tort claims. This defense is commonly used in contractor-subcontractor injury disputes.
What legal issues were central to this electrical accident case?
Key issues included negligence, workplace safety compliance, and the proper application of Kansas’s comparative fault and statutory cap laws. The case also involved procedural challenges over admissibility of evidence and allocation of responsibility. Each issue influenced the final outcome and amount of damages.
What can legal professionals learn from the Rowan case?
The case illustrates the importance of clearly defining roles and responsibilities on utility projects. It also highlights how fault apportionment and procedural law can dramatically alter financial outcomes. Attorneys should be prepared to address multiple defenses and statutory limits when litigating similar injury cases.
Electrical Injuries
Electrical Accidents
Electrical Shock
Electrocutions
Electric Power Lines
Utility Construction
Construction Accidents
Worker Safety
Safety Engineering
Causation Analysis
Utilities, +4
Utilities
Environmental Engineering, +4
Utilities
What can legal professionals learn from the Rowan case?
The case illustrates the importance of clearly defining roles and responsibilities on utility projects. It also highlights how fault apportionment and procedural law can dramatically alter financial outcomes. Attorneys should be prepared to address multiple defenses and statutory limits when litigating similar injury cases.