In the wake of the tragic electrocution incident at a fountain in Jupiter, Florida, Ray Arouesty, Senior Vice President, HUB International Insurance Services, weighs in on the potential liability risks surrounding the event. With a career spanning several decades in the pool and spa industry, Arouesty highlights the serious concerns posed by electric shock hazards in water features equipped with 110- or 220-volt lighting. He also anticipates the likelihood of litigation, emphasizing that such cases often involve multiple defendants shifting blame. Read our interview with Arouesty to gain more insights into the legal intricacies of this unfortunate incident.
SIN: How common are electric shock or electrocution incidents in the pool and spa industry?
Arouesty: The electric shock hazard is one of my biggest concerns in swimming pools and water features that are equipped with 110- or 220volt lighting. I have seen at least a half dozen incidents in my career where people using pools and spas have received an electric shock, with events ranging from a minor tingling sensation to death.
SIN: Will there be multiple lawsuits?
Arouesty: Serious incidents, of course, usually result in litigation with many possible defendants all blaming each other.
SIN: What do you think are the liability risks of the original builder of the fountain?
Arouesty: Plaintiffs’ lawyers will first look at the work performed by the building contractor to determine whether the water feature was built correctly. The possible parties here include not only the general contractor, but subcontractors as well, including electricians and any other contractor whose work may have damaged the electrical installation. Was there proper bonding and grounding? Were the proper safeguards, like ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCI) installed? Was the GFCI defective? If so, a manufacturer could also be named as a party.
SIN: What do you think are the liability risks of the service company of the fountain?
Arouesty: The maintenance company is an obvious potential party in any litigation involving electric shock. The maintenance company services the water feature regularly and therefore has an opportunity to discover an electric shock hazard. A maintenance contractor could be liable if it should have known of the problem, even though it did not have actual knowledge of the electrical hazard.
SIN: How else might liability be assessed when this eventually comes up as a lawsuit?
Arouesty: The most obvious defendant in any case like this is the property owner and property manager. They have an obligation to safeguard the public from dangerous conditions on their property, and in this incident, they may have even had actual knowledge that a problem existed based on prior reports.
Given the number of possible parties, resolution of matters like this can be lengthy, especially when the damages are high, as they are in wrongful death cases.
