Carden v. Georgia Power Co.
| Decision Date | 29 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 27939,27939 |
| Citation | 231 Ga. 456,202 S.E.2d 55 |
| Parties | H. D. CARDEN v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
James & Shipp, John E. James, James E. Peugh, Milledgeville, for appellant.
Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton, Wallace Miller, Jr., W. Warren Plowden, Jr., Macon, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This case is here by writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, was injured when machinery with which he was working came in contact with high tension wires owned and maintained by Georgia Power Company, the appellee-respondent here and the defendant in the trial court. The plaintiff brought an action in the trial court seeking recovery of damages allegedly caused by the negligence of the power company. The power company made a motion for summary judgment which was denied by the trial court; a certificate for immediate review was granted; and on appeal to the Court of Appeals the judgment of the trial court was reversed. See Georgia Power Company v. Carden, 128 Ga.App. 347, 196 S.E.2d 477.
We granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals on two counts: (1) The granting of a summary judgment as a matter of law in favor of the power company, and (2) the treatment accorded Chapter 34B-2 (Ga.L.1960, p. 181) by the Court of Appeals.
A review of the record in the trial court on the summary judgment issue reveals that the only negligence on the part of the power company presented by the evidence was that the power company maintained its high tension lines above a traveled roadway at a minimum height of twenty-four feet four inches, and that the power company knew or should have known that electrical construction work was being conducted by other parties in the immediate vicinity of the high tension wires maintained at this height above the traveled roadway. The Court of Appeals held that the mere maintenance of high tension wires at the minimum height shown by the evidence over a traveled roadway did not constitute actionable negligence; that the power company was entitled to the protection of Code Ann. Ch. 34B-2; and that there was no material issue of fact in the case for determination by a jury.
In a negligence case, presented on motion for summary judgment by a defendant charged with negligence, the trial judge must determine: (1) the defendant's duty to the plaintiff and the risks that fall within the scope of that duty, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to raise an issue of fact.
It is elementary that one maintaining high tension lines must do so in such a manner and at such a location as not to injure persons who might be reasonably expected to come in contact with such lines. That was the duty owed by the power company to the plaintiff in this case. The evidence showed that the lines in this case were maintained at a minimum height of twenty-four feet four inches above the traveled roadway. This being so, what risks fall within the scope of the power company's duty in this case?
In our present mode of living in Georgia, in a society in which the transmission of electricity is an absolute necessity for our economic, social, and cultural wellbeing, we hold that the mere maintenance without more, of high tension lines at the minimum height shown by the evidence in this case does not create...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Mitchell County Elec. Corp.
...such a location as not to injure persons who might be reasonably expected to come in contact with such lines." Carden v. Ga. Power Co., 231 Ga. 456-457, 202 S.E.2d 55 (1973). For the defense of assumption of a known risk of danger, the defendant must prove not only that the plaintiff knew o......
-
Preston v. Georgia Power Co.
...[under OCGA § 46-3-34] is a bar to recovery only where the lines are 'otherwise properly located and maintained.' Carden v. Ga. Power [Co., 231 Ga. 456, 457, 202 S.E.2d 55 ]." Malvarez v. Ga. Power Co., 250 Ga. 568, 569, 300 S.E.2d 145, supra. As Judge Beasley accurately pointed out in a sp......
-
Shuman v. Mashburn
...Co. v. Carden, 128 Ga.App. 347, 196 S.E.2d 477. In affirming our court in this last case the Supreme Court said in Carden v. Ga. Power Co., 231 Ga. 456, 202 S.E.2d 55 that 'In a negligence case, presented on motion for summary judgment by a defendant charged with negligence, the trial judge......
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Williams
...line situation was dealt with in Georgia Power Co. v. Carden, 128 Ga.App. 347, 196 S.E.2d 477, supra, affirmed in Carden v. Georgia Power Co., 231 Ga. 456, 202 S.E.2d 55. There the plaintiff was injured when a boom on a truck on which he was riding contacted defendant's uninsulated wire whi......