Here:
http://ebookee.org/National-Electrical-Code-NFPA-70-2011-Edition_1130552.html
Two links don't work, and the other one wants me to download an executable (lulz no - plus I'm using Linux anyways).
Ultimately, the issue isn't ultimately with the NFPA-70 - I'll take your word for what it says.
The issues that I brought up in response to your article about the lineman still linger unanswered, as well as my subsequent recommendation about disconnecting buildings on the circuit.
To start, you claim that the homeowner was negligent, regardless of whether the backfeed (and subsequent death of the lineman) was due to the homeowner not opening the main breaker or there was a material defect with the breaker after the homeowner believed he had opened it, because NFPA-70 wasn't followed.
This assertion could not be farther from the truth.
In this case, we can safely assume that four out of the five elements of a negligence case were met:
Duty - Reasonable man standard would indicate that a generator back feeding into the grid could pose a threat to the lineman. This I will not dispute.
Cause in fact - I also won't dispute the fact that the backfeeding generator was the cause of the linemans death.
Proximate cause - Again, something I wouldn't dispute. Assuming the breaker wasn't opened, I would argue that the defendant would have foreseen the potential damages from backfeeding the generator.
Damages - Obviously the lineman is dead.
However, there is one element that still needs to be determined -
Breach of duty.
This is where it needs to be known whether the homeowner actually tried opening the breaker and it failed due to material defect, or whether the homeowner didn't try opening the breaker.
If the homeowner didn't try opening the breaker, discounting my other argument that linemen should disconnect service to buildings before conducting work, then sure, I can see there being a breach of duty, subsequently meeting all five elements of a negligence case.
However, if he tried opening the breaker, but it failed due to material defect, I argue that there was no breach of duty. Reasonable man standard would indicate that when you open a breaker, there should be a disconnection of the circuit. If it were not the case that an open breaker would disconnect a circuit, then short of physically disconnecting service to the building, how would one perform electrical work within a building?
NFPA-70 might come in to play if the guy was an electrician, but even then, there are probably arguments could be made by the electrician(and/or his attorney) why said document doesn't apply.