Horton v. Georgia Power Co.
Decision Date | 13 March 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 57391,57391 |
Citation | 254 S.E.2d 479,149 Ga.App. 328 |
Parties | HORTON v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Robert M. Travis, Atlanta, for appellant.
Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Frederick E. Link, Robert L. Pennington, Atlanta, for appellee.
Jimmy L. Horton negligently drove his Ford van into a utility pole owned by Georgia Power Company in East Point, as a result of which the pole was broken, necessitating replacement. It was a 55 foot class 3 pole, which carried a 3-phase 20 KV primary, two span guy's, two sign stringers and a street light. The power company sued Horton for damages.
Replacement cost was stipulated to be $542.09. It was also stipulated that the actual cost out-of-stock of the pole itself was $200.69 when it was installed in 1974, that the pole had been in place for approximately two years at the time of the accident, and that while Georgia Power assigns no fixed life expectancy for each pole, the entire distribution system is depreciated for tax and accounting purposes at 3.3% Per year. There was no evidence that the pole had any market value or that its value was in fact different from the cost of repairs.
The trial court granted Georgia Power's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for $542.09. Horton appeals, and we affirm.
The sole question in dispute, both in the trial court and here on appeal, was whether the power company was entitled to recover all its necessary expenses for replacement of the utility pole without deduction for depreciation based upon the age of the pole.
"Damages are given as compensation for the injury done and generally this is the measure where the injury is of a character capable of being estimated in money." Code Ann. § 105-2001. A utility pole is a very small, but nonetheless integral, part of any electrical distribution system. Its value lies in its service, that is, in its remaining in place and continuing to perform its function with many other similar poles and equipment in sustaining an electrical distribution system. It is chiefly or rather exclusively valuable to the power company. It is hardly practical to attempt to apply a measure of damages based on the difference in market value before and after the accident. Cost of repairs is about the only available measure of loss. Cherry v. McCutchen, 65 Ga.App. 301, 303(2), 16 S.E.2d 167, 168 (1941).
Zeeman Mfg. Co. v. L. R. Sams Co., 123 Ga.App. 99, 179 S.E.2d 552 (1970), Housing Authority v. Savannah Iron & Wire Works, 91 Ga.App. 881, 87 S.E.2d 671 (1955) and Housing Authority v. Goolsby, 136 Ga.App. 156, 220 S.E.2d 466 (1975), relied upon by Horton, are inapposite. The two housing authority cases involve the measure of damages in condemnation cases, and neither involves the question of damages to an integral part of a larger or more comprehensive property, or a property such as an electrical distribution system. Zeeman was a suit by a lessor against the lessee for damages to a building. The lease involved apparently included a provision that the property was to be returned in the same condition excluding "normal wear and tear."
More analogous to the present factual situation would be instances when fences have been destroyed. The Supreme Court held in Central R. etc. Co. v. Murray, 93 Ga. 256, 257(4), 20 S.E. 129 (1893), "For fencing injured or destroyed the recovery should be measured by the cost of restoring it and making its condition as good as that in which it was when injured or destroyed."
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Puget Sound Power and Light Co. v. Strong, 11668-5-II
...635 P.2d 1003 (1981); But See New Jersey Power & Light Co. v. Mabee, 41 N.J. 439, 442, 197 A.2d 194 (1964); Horton v. Georgia Power Co., 149 Ga.App. 328, 254 S.E.2d 479 (1979); Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Paul, 261 N.C. 710, 136 S.E.2d 103 (1964); Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Tillman,......
-
Portland General Elec. Co. v. Taber
...153 Cal.Rptr. 319 (1979); Hartford Electric Light Company v. Beard, 3 Conn.Cir.Ct. 323, 213 A.2d 536 (1965); Horton v. Georgia Power Co., 149 Ga.App. 328, 254 S.E.2d 479 (1979); Kansas Power & Light Co. v. Thatcher, 14 Kan.App.2d 613, 797 P.2d 162 (1990); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Smit......
-
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Strong
...153 Cal.Rptr. 319 (1979); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Mounteer, 66 Cal.App.3d 809, 136 Cal.Rptr. 280 (1977); Horton v. Georgia Power Co., 149 Ga.App. 328, 254 S.E.2d 479 (1979); Kansas Power & Light Co. v. Thatcher, 14 Kan.App.2d 613, 797 P.2d 162 (1990); Gulf States Utils. Co. v. Guidry, 18......
-
Kansas Power and Light Co. v. Thatcher
...(2) Connecticut--Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Beard, 3 Conn.Cir.Ct. 323, 213 A.2d 536 (1965); (3) Georgia--Horton v. Ga. Power Co., 149 Ga.App. 328, 254 S.E.2d 479 (1979); (4) Louisiana--Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Smith, 343 So.2d 367 (La.App.1977); (5) Mississippi--Mississippi Power ......