Plan B Forum

Simona Wilson, California Mom Repeatedly Shocked In Shower By Stray Electricity, Awarded $4 Million

The Huffington Post | By Megan Griffo

Simona Wilson was awarded $4 million after she'd been repeatedly shocked in her shower by stray electricity.

A Los Angeles County jury awarded one woman $4 million on Monday after stray electricity from a next-door substation repeatedly shocked her in the shower.

Simona Wilson, of Redondo Beach, Calif., experienced low-voltage electrocution each time she adjusted the new, metal shower head installed in her home in March 2011, according to Redondo Beach Patch. She said the jolts left her with nerve damage.

Symptoms that began as nausea and headaches turned into numb arms, legs, and feet by that April, Easy Reader reported. Her condition forced her to make several trips to the emergency room. According to the Los Angeles Times, the nerve damage eventually developed into a condition called erythromelalgia.

Wilson, a mother of three, suspected the shower head was to blame when her boyfriend, Jason Stelle, also experienced a tingling feeling as he touched it.

Her attorney said that doctors were unable to link nerve damage to the stray electricity, NBC Los Angeles reported, but a home inspector told her to "get out" immediately. She moved out in September 2011 and filed a lawsuit against utility company Southern California Edison that October.

The home was originally built by Edison in 1960 to house workers from the nearby Topaz power substation, according to the New York Daily News.

Wilson's attorneys, Lars C. Johnson and Brian Hong, said that the company did not disclose this history when they sold the home.

On Monday, the court decided that Edison had acted in "reckless disregard" and was "negligent," according to the Beach Reporter.

Wilson was awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages.

"We are thrilled," Johnson told the Beach Reporter. "Simona has been in a long fight, and Edison put her through a lot. "

On Tuesday, the company released a statement saying it had acted responsibly and "cooperated fully with the investigation," NBC Los Angeles reported. Edison is still deciding whether to appeal.

source

Should there be more charges? Is this story revolting? Watts going on? ...

Being an EE (summa cum laude) I can only assume that the company who erected the house or who hooked up the eletricity tied the ground of said electricity to the copper piping rather than the ground from the electric companies feed and the spike they were supposed to drill into the ground. I would imagine that the "lo" and/or "gnd" (which usually get tied together in the breaker box) of the AC is connected to the piping and that there is no "real" grounding of the house.

Wow, for four million bucks, I'll take a shock in the shower and some minor nerve damage any day...(from the story, it doesn't appear that she's suffered any serious or debilitating injuries)

She must have had one helluva lawyer...

One should not expect any electric related nerve damage from using the shower. Nothing short of gross negligence would cause such a problem. Most likely overlooked due to it being converted from temporary housing which gets inspected to a lower standard (you can hang wires from trees on a temporary permit)

Like I said, one helluva lawyer...

Of course the shyster is going to wind up with 40%, so all you're left with is 2.5 mil....

But even so....

Not a bad pay day for a little minor nerve damage....

It not about the damage it's about selling a home that is pantently unsafe.

Where can I sign up for us to move into a house that's patently unsafe?

That's what I need to do...

Move into a house near an electrical substation that's a bit dodgy....

You'd epose your daughter and little jimmy to a hose like that for money?

You'd epose your daughter and little jimmy to a hose like that for money?

It doesn't look like it was really all that dangerous, CP...

You'd epose

Is that your Ricky Ricardo impersonation?

a hose like that for money

Can't speak for your neighborhood, but we don't have any hose around here looking for money...

All hose are looking for money...

Her attorney said that doctors were unable to link nerve damage to the stray electricity, NBC Los Angeles reported, but a home inspector told her to "get out" immediately. She moved out in September 2011 and filed a lawsuit against utility company Southern California Edison that October.

Doesn't sound that bad to you eh? Slumlords would love you as a tenant. What you are missing is that the nerve damage is the small part the whole damn place was a hazzard waiting for the right thing to happen for the house to go up (I wonder how the place passed the sale inspection in the first place). They were lucky that they found the problem before catastrophe struck. (Even more so since it took a while to figure out getting shocked in the shower isn't a good thin). You'll note that this settlement was made even though they failed to prove the electrical problem is what caused the nerve damage. That's because the place had no business being sold in the first place

BTW you start addressing my arguments by complaining about the spelling errors I'll start calling you BSG

Crackpot wrote:(Even more so since it took a while to figure out getting shocked in the shower isn't a good thin).

Are you sure you aren't Ricky Ricardo?

'Splain that one to me Lucy.

They were lucky

Yeah, they were lucky all right....

You'll note that this settlement was made even though they failed to prove the electrical problem is what caused the nerve damage

Oh, I noted that immediately....

That's where the "helluva lawyer" part comes in...

I'll start calling you BSG

Uh huh.....

So that's how you wanna play....

In that case, I'll see your neurotic nutbar, and raise you a paranoid whack job....

You want to start calling me BSG, then I'll start calling you Steve....

Hey just because I know enough about electricity to know you shouldn't be feeling it in the shower faucet doesn't make me an electrician from chester.

That being said the point stands that the nerve damage or lack thereof does not excuse the gross negligence on Edison's behalf.

In all seriousness, CP, I'm not suggesting that this was in any way a good situation...of course it was dangerous, and the potential existed for real tragedy...

But real tragedy didn't happen here, and ordinarily when somebody gets a big settlement, it's because something really bad actually happened....

Which brings me back to the helluva lawyer thing....

This attorney managed to persuade a jury to award 3 million dollars as a punitive judgement, even though, (as you pointed out) "they failed to prove the electrical problem is what caused the nerve damage"...(the only real, relatively small damage that actually occurred here...)

Maybe I'm just an incurable cynic, but my suspicion is that the reason an award of that size was granted, was a combination of good lawyering, and a jury that was probably pre-disposed to dislike SoCal Edison in the first place, (Who the hell likes their utility company?) and were more than happy to give Edison a swift kick in the balls...

I'm not saying Edison didn't deserve it; maybe they did, I didn't hear the case....but whether they deserved it or not, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that those were the dynamics in play here....a good lawyer skillfully exploiting the community's dislike of their electric company, to win a very substantial award for their (not very injured) client...

I agree Edison is unlikely to make a sympathetic client. Though I suspect the reward might have something to do with the fact that the electric company sold a property with a completely unsafe electric condition. These fools were just the lucky recipients of the jury's desire to adequately punish the company for apparently being completely incompetent at it's declared expertise.

Although it may meet resistance, I'm wondering if a circuit court judge might act on an impulse and have the power to test the capacity of the ruling and consider juror conduct that might have impeded progress and would shed light on the legal grounding that could result in a discharge of the accusation and switching of the verdict.

On what grounds?

Do you think Edison could rectify the situation by claiming poor workmanship was only a phase?