Hatcher v. Ga. Power Co

• Decision Date: 29 January 1930
• Docket Number: (No. 19806.)
• Citation: 151 S.E. 696,40 Ga.App. 830
• Parties: HATCHER. v. GEORGIA POWER CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

40 Ga.App. 830

151 S.E. 696

HATCHER.

v.GEORGIA POWER CO.

(No. 19806.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Jan. 29, 1930.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from City Court of Floyd County; John W. Bale, Judge.

Action by H. M. Hatcher against the Georgia Power Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Porter & Mebane, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.

Dean & Camp, of Rome, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

JENKINS, P. J. [1] 1. 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 current is supplied with actual knowledge on the part of one supplying it of the defective and dangerous condition of his customer's appliances, he will be charged with liability for injuries occasioned by supplying current for use on such defective wires or appliances. 20 C. J. p. 304, § 49 (D); Hoffman v. Leavenworth Eight, Heat & Power Co., 91 Kan. 450 (2), 138 P. 632, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 574.

2. In the instant case it appears that the electric current was supplied by the defendant to the Berry Schools, for the latter's use, over and along poles, wires, and equipment constructed, operated, and maintained by the customer. Since there was no duty of inspection on the part of the defendant supplying the current, the alleged, element of negligence charged against the defendant, wherein it is alleged that the customer allowed a tree, which died two years after the current had been turned on the wires, to stand for four years thereafter, until, on account of its decay, it fell and broke the wires, could not be chargeable against the defendant company, which merely furnished the current, but, inasmuch as it is alleged in the petition that the line of wire was originally negligently constructed by the customer, in that it entirely lacked insulation, whereas diligence required that the wire carrying such a high current over the customer's school grounds should have been properly insulated, and, inasmuch as the petition alleged that such defective and dangerous condition was known to the defendant at the time it...