Douberly v. Okefenokee Rural Elec. Membership Corp.

• Decision Date: 05 July 1978
• Docket Number: Nos. 55589,55590,s. 55589
• Citation: 146 Ga.App. 568,246 S.E.2d 708
• Parties: DOUBERLY v. OKEFENOKEE RURAL ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION et al. (two cases).
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 708

246 S.E.2d 708

146 Ga.App. 568

DOUBERLY v. OKEFENOKEE RURAL ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION et al. (two cases).

Nos. 55589, 55590.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Argued April 10, 1978.

Decided June 20, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 5, 1978.

Gibbs, Leaphart & Smith, J. Alvin Leaphart, Jesup, for appellant.

Bennet, Gilbert, Gilbert, Whittle, Harrell & Gayner, James B. Gilbert, Jr., Brunswick, Bouhan, Williams & Levy, Walter C. Hartridge, II, Leamon R. Holliday, III, Savannah, for appellees.

SHULMAN, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant, a logger, sustained serious electrical burns when a tree felled by him struck a power line owned by Okefenokee Rural Electric Membership Corporation (hereinafter "Okefenokee REMC"). Suit was brought against Okefenokee REMC and Union Camp Corporation (hereinafter "Union Camp"), the owner of the land crossed by the power line. This appeal, Case no. 55589, follows summary judgments granted in favor of Union Camp and Okefenokee REMC. We affirm the judgments.

1. Appellant alleged that Okefenokee REMC was negligent in failing to adequately keep its right-of-way clear of vegetation and in failing to install an adequate circuit breaker or recloser.

The evidence submitted on summary judgment conclusively establishes that appellant's injuries were caused by "the cutting and felling of the tree across the defendant's transmission line by (plaintiff), and that the alleged negligence on the part of the defendant was not the proximate cause of such injury." Irwin v. Ga. Power &c. Co., 84 Ga.App. 665, 671, 67 S.E.2d 151-154. "(T)he injury would not have resulted from the ordinary and natural consequences of the alleged negligence of the defendant . . ." Irwin, supra, p. 670, 67 S.E.2d p. 154.

The question here is one of legal causation. Even if the plaintiff exercised all reasonable care in cutting the tree, plaintiff cannot recover for injuries resulting from his own acts which were not the natural result of the allegedly negligent antecedent act of the defendant. Rollestone v. Cassirer & Co., 3 Ga.App. 161(3(a)), 59 S.E. 442. To hold otherwise would be to place the perpetrator of the efficient cause of the injury in a better position than an innocent third party who under the same circumstance would have no legal claim against the power company. Accordingly, summary judgment was proper. Irwin, supra. See also Ga. Power Co. v. Wood, 43 Ga.App. 542, 159 S.E. 729; Gillespie v. Andrews, 27 Ga.App. 509, 108 S.E. 906.

2. Appellant sought recovery against Union Camp on the basis of the owner's alleged breach of a duty to warn appellant of the existence of the power line.

The unrefuted evidence on summary judgment conclusively shows that appellant's employer (apparently an independent contractor) was informed of the existence and location of the power line by an official of the company retained by Union Camp for timber harvesting operations.

Appellant's employer admits actual knowledge of the existence of the power line. There can be no question as to the adequacy of the warning. " '(F)ull knowledge by the independent contractor of the dangers should and will be held to discharge the landowner's alternative duty to warn the employees.' " Brown v. American Cyanamid &c. Corp., 372 F.Supp. 311, 316 (S.D.Ga.1973) quoting Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp. v. Henry (Tex.S.Ct.), 416 S.W.2d 390, 394.

Although appellant denies that the warning was relayed by his employer to him, this issue is neither relevant nor material to the issue of appellee-Union Camp's duty to appellant. It is not a genuine issue of material fact that...