Georgia Power Co. v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 25 September 1975
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 50993,50993,3
• Citation: 136 Ga.App. 135,220 S.E.2d 460
• Parties: GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. L. B. EDWARDS, Jr
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 460

220 S.E.2d 460

136 Ga.App. 135

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. L. B. EDWARDS, Jr.

No. 50993.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

Sept. 25, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1975.

Brinson, Askew & Berry, Robert M. Brinson, Rome, for appellant.

Gammon & Anderson, Wayne W. Gammon, Cedartown, for appellee.

DEEN, Presiding Judge.

1. (a) Edwards was badly burned during the installation of a lighting system for the Cedartown High School football field, a contract on which he was the low bidder. Very briefly, the defendant power company had previously run power to the high school through a radial 1500 KVA transformer containing 65 ampere fuses. 12,470 volts were available on the primary side. A loop system was being added to light a new elementary school and football field. For purposes of the football field a 300 KVA transformer was added about 200 feet west of the original transformer, and installed by the defendant, the plans for which called for 15 ampere fuses. The defendant ordered the transformer from a manufacturer; when it became evident that this would not arrive in time it arranged for installation of a 300 KVA transformer without fuses which was available from its Dalton office. Cables were placed underground between the transformers, and an underground conduit from the second transformer to the switch box. The power company installed the transformer on a concrete pad, and, according to the plaintiff's testimony, also installed the conduit halfway out to the switch box and 'we picked it up and installed it the rest of the way to the switch box. We installed the wire inside the conduit, the power company made it up on their end and we made it up on our end, that supplied the voltage and the current from the transformer to the switch box.' A fire and explosion occurred in the switch box during testing, apparently from a short circuit, and the plaintiff standing a foot or two away received massive third degree burns over a fourth of his body surface.

The theory of the defendant and its experts was that this extraordinary fire could only have been caused by the plaintiff himself, while he was standing before the box connecting the various light circuits for testing. The plaintiff's testimony, corroborated by other witnesses, was that the energy surge happened some interval after he had flicked the switch, that nothing he did caused it, and that the fire first appeared as boiling up out of the conduit at the base of the switch box rather than from among wires within the box itself. Thus, the plaintiff's theory was that a surge of electricity somewhere in the system had caused the short circuit, due to the fact that no fuses had been installed on the new transformer, and that the large transformer was greatly 'overfused' so as not to protect the lines running from the one just installed.

( b) It has been held that fuses placed on transformers are for the benefit of the power company, and that it has no duty to a plaintiff to provide fuses or circuit breakers or otherwise prevent the admission of electricity into lines and systems under the control of a plaintiff, where the plaintiff is injured as a result of a short circuit or fire resulting from defective equipment which is under the latter's control. Lowes v. Union Electric Co. (Mo.App.), 405 S.W.2d 506; Reichholdt v. Union Elec. Co. (Mo.), 329 S.W.2d 634; Minneapolis Gen. Elec. Co. v. Cronon, 8 Cir., 166 F. 651. The rule in this state is that 'where wiring or other electrical appliances on private premises are owned and controlled by the owner or occupant of the premises, a company which merely furnishes electricity is not responsible for the insulation or condition of the wiring or appliances, and is not liable for injuries caused by their defective condition, to the owner or occupant, or to third persons on the premises, except that the rule thus stated seems to be properly qualified to the extent that, whenever electric current is supplied with actual knowledge on the part of the one supplying it of the defective and dangerous condition of his customers appliances, he will be charged with liability for injuries occasioned by supplying current for use on such defective wires or appliances . . .' and the responsibility of the supplier ends "when the connection is properly made under proper conditions and it delivers the current in a manner which will protect both life and property' . . . This, however, does not relieve the company from the duty of using proper devices and safeguards to prevent dangerous currents from passing into buildings of patrons and there causing damage.' Ga. Power Co. v. Kinard, 47 Ga.App. 483, 484, 170 S.E. 688. The current should be delivered in a manner to protect life and property. Milligan v. Ga. Power Co., 68 Ga.App. 269(1), 22 S.E.2d 662. That circulation of primary voltage current over secondary lines may be negligence, see City of Thomasville v. Jones, 17 Ga.App. 625, 626, 87 S.E. 923. Under the evidence in this case the jury might have believed that the fire started from a short circuit within the switch box which the plaintiff had been wiring and was not the fault of the power company. On the other hand, it obviously did accept the theory, supported by testimony of the plaintiff and another eyewitness, that the first flame came from under the box, through the conduit; that the only reasonable source of a fire from this location was a powerful surge of electricity through the unfused lower-voltage transformer sufficient to melt the wires in the conduit, and that failure to fuse the transformer in accordance with the plans and specifications of the power company in installing it in the first instance was a negligent act, the results of which might have been foreseen by it. Accordingly, there was at least...