Cent. Ga. Electric Membership Corp. v. Heath

Decision Date22 September 1939
Docket NumberNo. 27587.,27587.
PartiesCENTRAL GEORGIA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION. v. HEATH.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court.

The original petition and the petition as amended set forth a cause of action, and the court did not err in overruling the general and special grounds of the demurrers of the defendant.

Error from Superior Court, Butts County; G. Ogden Persons, Judge.

Action by L. D. Heath against the Central Georgia Electric Membership Corporation to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment overruling demurrers to plaintiff's original and amended petitions, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

L. D. Heath brought suit against Central Georgia Electric Membership Corporation to recover damages because of injuries sustained by him on account of the alleged negligence of the defendant, the petition alleging that the defendant was engaged in furnishing electric energy to persons in rural areas not receiving electric service from any corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the Georgia Public Service Commission or from any municipal corporation, and that in order to do so it maintained electric wire lines, charged with high electric current, strung on poles; that such a line passes a few feet from the residence of plaintiff in which he, his wife and child lived on June 11, 1938, prior thereto and since; that defendant attached lateral electric wires to its main line and fastened the other end of said lateral electric wires to the wall of plaintiff's residence, and that the end of the wires so fastened to plaintiff's residence was not grounded in any way, simply being fastened and attached to the outside of the wall of plaintiff's residence; that this was done without the consent of plaintiff and without any right to do so and in fact was a trespass on the part of the defendant; that it was negligence on the part of the defendant to fasten said wires to plaintiff's residence, and especially so without properly grounding the same or otherwise taking the proper precaution to protect plaintiff and his residence; that about midnight on June 11, 1938, or shortly thereafter, plaintiff was in bed and was injured in described respects by electricity coming from the main line over the lateral wires and into the room which he was occupying and also damaging certain of his personal property; that by reason of the alleged acts of negligence of the defendant plaintiff has been injured and damaged by the defendant in the sum of $10,000 for which judgment is prayed.

The defendant demurred on general and special grounds, all of which were overruled, and defendant filed and had certified its exceptions pendente lite. Subsequently the plaintiff amended his petition by alleging that on the night when he was injured, as set out in the petition, there was a thunder storm with lightning, and the lightning struck the poles and wires on the main line of the defendant almost opposite the plaintiff's residence and passed thence over the lateral wires fastened to his residence as already set out. The defendant renewed its demurrers, and the exceptions here are to the judgment overruling the demurrers to the original petition and the judgment overruling the demurrers to the petition as amended.

W. E. Watkins and B. B. Garland, both of Jackson, for plaintiff in error.

H. M. Fletcher, of Jackson, for defendant in error.

SUTTON, Judge (after stating the foregoing facts).

In the present case the petition alleges that the defendant attached the lateral wire to the wall of plaintiff's residence without his permission. Even where consent is given in order that by contract one may avail himself of elec-tricity supplied by a utility corporation, the latter must take measures to safeguard the user from danger. The rule is stated in Columbus Railroad Co. v. Kitchens, 142 Ga. 677, 83 S.E. 529, L.R.A.1915C, 570, as follows: "Where an electric light company maintains overhead wires...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Concrete Const. Co. v. City of Atlanta, s. 70344
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 1985
    ...agency, and that an act which may be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care is not an act of God." Central Ga. etc. Corp. v. Heath, 60 Ga.App. 649, 652, 4 S.E.2d 700 (1939). The defense of legal accident is confined to occurrences which take place in the absence of negligence and for wh......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT