Benson v. Action Elec. Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 April 1974
• Docket Number: Nos. 1,No. 49162,2,3,49162,s. 1
• Citation: 206 S.E.2d 647,131 Ga.App. 623
• Parties: Donald BENSON v. ACTION ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 647

206 S.E.2d 647

131 Ga.App. 623

Donald BENSON v. ACTION ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.

No. 49162.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division Nos. 1, 2, 3.

April 19, 1974.

Autrey, Ware & Otonicar, Jerome C. Ware, Marietta, for appellant.

Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Palmer H. Ansley, Edward C. Stone, Charles E. Walker, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

EBERHARDT, Presiding Judge.

It was not error to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment since the pleadings, depositions, etc., summarized below, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under fundamental principles of negligence law. Huckabee v. Grace, 48 Ga.App. 621, 627(2), 173 S.E. 744; Mayor, etc., of Macon v. Dykes, 103 Ga. 847, 31 S.E. 443; Augusta Amusements, Inc. v. Powell, 93 Ga.App. 752, 754, 92 S.E.2d 720; Herring v. Hauck, 118 Ga.App. 623, 165 S.E.2d 198; Herschel McDaniel Funeral Home v. Hines, 124 Ga.App. 47, 50, 183 S.E.2d 7; Shockley v. Zayre of Atlanta, 118 Ga.App. 672, 165 S.E.2d 179; Whitaker v. Jones, McDougald, Smith, Pew Co., 69 Ga.App. 711(1, 2), 26 S.E.2d 545; Deco Leasing Corp. v. Harvey, 114 Ga.App. 217, 150 S.E.2d 699; Daneker v. Megrue, 114 Ga.App. 312, 151 S.E.2d 157.

The evidence submitted here demanded a finding that even if there had been negligence on the part of the defendant in leaving the electric conduit 'dangling' from the ceiling (the line was not energized), the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury was his own negligence in moving the conduit to the side of the scaffolding where it could and did catch on the plyboard platform when the scaffolding was moved at his direction. No actionable negligence on the part of the defendant appears.

Judgment affirmed.

BELL, C.J., PANNELL, P.J., and DEEN, QUILLIAN, CLARK and STOLZ, JJ., concur.

EVANS, J., dissents.

WEBB, J., not participating.

Donald Benson brought suit against Action Electric Company, Inc., seeking to recover for injuries he sustained in a fall from a scaffold caused by a conduit which defendant had allegedly left dangling from the ceiling of a work project. At the time of the occurrence, the interior of a grocery store was being remodeled and changed to a discount store and delicatessen. Defendant was engaged in tearing out the existing wiring and removing conduits that were hanging from the ceiling, and plaintiff and two co-workers were engaged in removing a parapet or hanging wall which came down from the ceiling to within approximately eight feet of the floor. Plaintiff was on top of a metal scaffold which was ten feet high, seven feet long, and four feet wide. He and his co-workers had assembled the scaffold the day before and had covered the top of the metal frame with a sheet of plywood which was one foot longer than the scaffold itself. Plaintiff had considerable work experience with scaffolding, and in order to keep the plywood from sliding lengthwise he had fastened one end of it with four nails.

In order to remove the parapet, which was constructed of 2 4's and sheetrock, plaintiff stood upon the scaffold, removed the materials and handed them down to his co-workers. The co-workers moved the scaffolding along the parapet from time to time to keep in progress with the work being done, and as it was being dragged along the concrete floor plaintiff remained on top in a squatting position. As they proceeded along in this fashion they reached a point where a conduit hanging down from the ceiling to within roughly ten feet of the floor was at the end of the scaffold and had to be moved aside to make way for it. Plaintiff moved the conduit from the end to the side of the scaffold so that the scaffold could be moved along the parapet approximately three feet. Having moved the conduit to the side, plaintiff asked his co-workers to pull the scaffold forward; and during the process of moving, the conduit caught the plyboard, raising it up and sliding it lengthwise enough to allow it and plaintiff to fall through. Recovery was sought from defendant on the basis that it was negligent in permitting the conduit to dangle unattended from the ceiling.

EVANS, Judge (dissenting).

Benson sued Action Electric Company, Inc. for injuries suffered in a fall from a scaffold inside a building. Both plaintiff and defendant were employed, in different capacities, to perform work in the building. Plaintiff and two co-workers were engaged in removing a parapet or hanging wall and defendant was engaged in tearing out the existing wiring and removing conduits that were hanging from the ceiling.

Plaintiff's complaint, in paragraphs 5 and 6, alleged: '5. That as a result of the negligence of said Defendant by and through its agents and servants, said Defendant left unattended a dangerous conduit which was permitted to dangle freely from the ceiling of the above mentioned structure. 6. That as a result of said conduit being allowed to remain in this fashion, Plaintiff was caused severe injury as a result of an ensuing fall from a scaffold from which he was working.'

There was evidence before the trial judge from which a jury could have concluded that defendant's agents did leave unattended a conduit which was permitted to dangle freely from the ceiling; that because of the conduit being allowed to dangle from the ceiling, while unguarded and unattended, plaintiff had to move the conduit from the middle toward the end of a scaffold; plaintiff was on top of the scaffold while performing the work he was employed to perform; that as the scaffold was moved forward, the conduit caught a piece of plyboard which was on top of the scaffold, and raised it so that plaintiff was caused to fall from the scaffold, as a result of which his injuries accrued.

The trial judge granted a summary judgment in favor of defendant and the majority opinion in this court affirms. But why affirm? Isn't this a case where the questions as to negligence must be determined by a jury, and not by the trial judge on motion for summary judgment?

Was the defendant negligent in leaving the conduit dangling at a place where plaintiff was required to work? How long had it been left there, unattended and unguarded? Did the defendant know that plaintiff would have to work in that particular place? Should the plaintiff have foreseen the negligent situation created by defendant? Should plaintiff have avoided the consequences to himself of defendant's negligence? Were the plaintiff and defendant equally negligent, and if not, which one was the more negligent? All of these are questions for a jury to determine.

In American Lighting & Supply Co. v. Baldwin, 126 Ga.App. 41, 42, 190 S.E.2d 82, 83, it is held: "Issues of negligence, including the related issues of assumption of risk, lack of ordinary care for one's own safety, lack of ordinary care in avoiding the consequences of another's negligence and comparative negligence, are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication whether for or against the plaintiff or the defendant, but must be resolved...