ShareThis Page

Professor: Failure to clean power line connection helped cause Hempfield woman's electrocution

Paul Peirce
| Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012, 8:56 a.m.

A metals expert told an Allegheny County jury Tuesday that a 7,200-volt power line failed and electrocuted a Hempfield woman in 2009 because a connection was not properly cleaned before it was installed five years earlier.

Dr. Campbell Laird, professor emeritus in material sciences at University of Pennsylvania's School of Engineering, testified in a wrongful death lawsuit that his examination of pieces of the failed line showed it corroded at a splice after West Penn Power Co. crews first erected it in 2004 outside the home of Carrie and Michael Goretzka on West Hempfield Drive.

“Why did that line fall on a calm and sunny day on June 2, 2009?” attorney Shanin Specter of Philadelphia asked Laird.

“It came down because it was given a start degrading by not having been cleaned properly. You see no signs of wire brushing on it,” Laird said.

By failing to clean the connection first with a wire brush as its manufacturer suggested, Laird explained to the jury that the failed connection was able to “pick up impurities from the environment, giving it a strong potential to decay over time.”

The line subsequently burned off at the connection and fell onto Carrie Goretzka, 39, as she stood outside her home using a cell phone to call authorities about the power outage. She died of her injuries three days later at UPMC Mercy in Pittsburgh.

Her husband, Michael, and daughters, Chloe, 8, and Carlie, 6, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the utility, now owned by FirstEnergy of Akron, Ohio. Chloe and Carlie witnessed the accident along with Carrie's mother-in-law, Joann.

Laird testified in the seventh day of the trial. He told jurors that the “red-hot” line was about 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit when it struck Carrie Goretzka.

Power company attorney Avrum Levicoff of Pittsburgh extensively questioned Laird about whether rain and snow could enter the splice. He referred to Laird's analysis that there was evidence of sulfur and chloride particles inside the splice.

“They don't have a mechanism to completely seal out rain,” Laird said.

Laird concurred with Levicoff's assessment that sulfur and chloride are components of acid rain, which also corrodes metal.

Levicoff questioned Laird about a 49-page report he prepared in September on the line's failure that omitted “microscopic photographs” of other splices along the same line that indicated some of the connections were wire-brushed.

When West Penn Power begins its defense in the case later this week, Levicoff is expected to summon his own metallurgists to testify that microscopic examinations of some of the splices indicate they were cleaned with a wire brush before they were installed.

The trial is expected to resume Wednesday morning before Judge Michael A. Della Vecchia.

Paul Peirce is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-850-2860 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.