Lamar Elec. Membership Corp. v. Carroll, 34690

Decision Date04 December 1953
Docket NumberNo. 34690,No. 1,34690,1
Citation79 S.E.2d 832,89 Ga.App. 440
PartiesLAMAR ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP. v. CARROLL
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court.

The petition stated a cause of action, and the trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

Kenneth P. Carroll filed a petition in the City Court of Macon against Lamar Electric Membership Corporation. To the petition the defendant filed a general demurrer, which was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The sole question for determination in this court is whether the petition sets forth a cause of action. The allegations necessary and material to the determination of whether it is sufficient to withstand a general demurrer are as follows: '1. The Lamar Electric Membership Corporation, hereinafter referred to as defendant, is a Rural Electrification Administration Cooperative engaged in the production, transmission and distribution of electrical energy. Said corporation is chartered under the laws of the State of Georgia with its principal office and place of business in Barnesville, Lamar County, Georgia. Said corporation engages in the transmission and distribution of electric energy in Bibb County and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

'2. Said defendant has injured and damaged petitioner in the sum of $82,953.20 as hereinafter set out.

'3. The accident described herein occurred in Bibb County, Georgia, on August 24, 1951, on improved property owned by one Henry D. Bryant. This property is located in Land Lot 231 of the Third District of Bibb County, Georgia, at the intersection of Mt. Pleasant Road (the dirt road running from Skipperton to Lizella, Georgia) and Newberry (Dixon) Road. Said property consists of approximately 4.7 acres, all as more particularly described in a deed from W. W. Hutcheson to Henry D. Bryant, dated June 27, 1951, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of Bibb County, in Book 626, folio 642.

'4. Defendant maintained and operated certain high voltage electric wires which ran over and upon this property. The wires were strung from a pole on the said Mt. Pleasant Road, over the property owned by Bryant, to supply electric energy to several houses to the west which face on Newberry Road. Bryant's house did not receive its electric power from these wires, but from a direct low voltage line running from the same pole.

'5. There was located on said property at the time of said accident a frame dwelling house which was rented out by said Bryant, and also a wellhouse, which was a walled-in wooden structure covering the well pump and other apparatus and was about seven feet in height. The dwelling house and the wellhouse were so located at the time of this accident on August 24, 1951, and for at least four years before.

'5 (a) The well opening was located at a distance of twenty five feet eight inches from the closest point on the ground directly beneath the aforementioned wires.

'6. The standard voltage on one of the defendant's main transmission lines is 6,900 volts. The top wire of the two wires which ran over Bryant's property and which are here involved was a main transmission line and it carried 6,900 volts at the time of the accident. The bottom wire is what is known as a common ground or neutral wire and carried no voltage.

'7. The top wire heretofore referred to was at a height of twenty-five feet one inch above the ground at the point on the ground which was closest to the well opening. The bottom wire was approximately four feet below the top wire, and, therefore, at a height of approximately twenty-one feet one inch above the ground at that point.

'7 (a) The top wire, which carried 6,900 volts of electricity, was not insulated.

'8. These wires were strung over the land of Bryant in such a way that they passed near the heavy foliage of several large trees growing near the wellhouse. By reason of this fact, at the point where the well pipe emerged from the ground a substantial portion of the two wires was hidden from the view of a person or persons there situated.

'9. There were no warning signs posted by the defendant on either of the two roads, or the poles, or on the property itself and there was nothing to suggest to the petitioner that these high voltage wires were there. Furthermore, petitioner was not warned by said Bryant or by any other person at or near the scene of the accident that there were hidden high tension wires located overhead. Petitioner did not know of the existence of the two wires heretofore described.

'10. The wellhouse covered the opening of a pipe well which had been drilled at least four years before the time of this accident. The pipe in this well was two inches in diameter and extended downward approximately eighty-five feet. This well had been in continuous use during the period of at least four years. Defendant knew of the existence and location of the well and well house.

'10 (a) The two inch pipe referred to above extended 1 1/2 feet above ground.

'11. In the regular and normal use and operation of a pipe well it happens from time to time that the well goes dry, often for reasons unknown to the user. When this happens, it is usually necessary that portions of the pipe and other apparatus be removed from within the well so as to determine the cause of the well going dry. Wells of the kind in use on this property contain a cylinder within the well pipe at a point only a few feet above the bottom of the pipe itself. This cylinder controls the pumping of the water which is obtained from the well. It is approximately one and one-half inches in diameter and one to two feet long. It has springs on the outside to enable it to be fitted to the well pipe.

'12. The pipe well which was located on this property, as hereinafter described, went dry during the summer of 1951. The owner of the property, Bryant, contracted with your petitioner for the latter to take whatever steps were necessary to either put this well back into satisfactory operation or to dig another well.

'13. The accident described herein occurred at approximately 11:00 a. m. on August 24, 1951. On that morning, petitioner, together with Bryant and T. E. Carroll, petitioner's father, undertook to remove the cylinder from this well. Prior to doing this they removed a pump rod, the washers and certain other apparatus which controlled the flow of water from the well.

'14. In order to remove the cylinder it was necessary that a pipe of a smaller diameter be lowered inside the well and be fitted to the cylinder. Petitioner and the others lowered a sufficient length of one inch pipe inside this well so that they connected the bottom of the pipe with the inside of the cylinder. In reaching the cylinder they used three sections of pipe and a part section. Such pipe comes in standard twenty-one foot sections and is fastened together by unions. In this instance, there were three twenty-one foot sections and a part section of approximately fifteen feet in length. The part section was at the bottom of the length of one inch pipe which was lowered into the pipe well, and it had an attachment on it that would engage and lock itself to the cylinder.

'15. In order that the pipe cpuld be lowered and in order that it could be pulled out after it was attached to the cylinder, a small hole approximately one and one-half by three inches was cut in the top of the wellhouse at a point directly above the opening of the well. Two of the helpers, Bryant and T. E. Carroll, petitioner's father, got on top of the wellhouse on either side of the hole which had been cut in the roof. It was their responsibility to help pull the pipe out of the well, to guide, support and steady the pipe above the wellhouse, and to disjoint the sections of pipe when a union between the sections emerged above the opening in the roof of the wellhouse.

'16. Petitioner was working inside the wellhouse at the opening of the well and was also helping to pull the pipe out of the well. He could not see the pipe after it went through the small hole which had been cut in the roof of the wellhouse above him and he relied upon his fellow workers to see that this pipe was guided, supported and steadied above the roof. He also relied upon his fellow workers to disjoint the sections of pipe when the union connecting the sections emerged above the opening in the wellhouse.

'17. After the cylinder was engaged, petitioner and the others began to pull the pipe out of the well opening. Two sections of pipe were successively disconnected. They then pulled out the third section of pipe to the point where the union or coupling connecting the third section and the part section was above the hole in the wellhouse roof, although the cylinder itself, which they believed was attached thereto, was still hidden from view. In actuality, at the time there remained in the well only a few inches of the part section.

'18. When the union or coupling between the third full section and the part section was at a point above the wellhouse roof, the workers on the roof decided to disjoint these sections. The twenty-one foot section of the well pipe extending above the union or coupling was at that time being guided and supported by them and was then resting against the branches of a large pine tree located adjacent to the wellhouse. The helpers on the roof, to-wit, T. E. Carroll and Henry D. Bryant, were using Stilson wrenches for this disjointing; one of them would use a wrench to hold firm the pipe below the union while the other employed a second wrench for the disjointing of the coupling. At about this time, Bryant reached down to get one of the Stilson wrenches and, as he leaned down, he removed both of his hands from the pipe. While T. E. Carroll was carelessly holding the pipe only with his left hand, the pipe slipped and skidded from the branches of the tree upon which it had been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Crosby v. Savannah Elec. & Power Co., 42091
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 14, 1966
    ...v. Georgia Power Co., 81 Ga.App. 293, 58 S.E.2d 505, Welch v. City of Camilla, 86 Ga.App. 609, 72 S.E.2d 83, Lamar Elec. Membership Corp. v. Carroll, 89 Ga.App. 440, 79 S.E.2d 832, Gilbert v. Ocmulgee Elec. Membership Corp., 93 Ga.App. 219, 91 S.E.2d 186, Planters Elec. Membership Corp. v. ......
  • Walker v. Oglethorpe Power Corp., A17A0384
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 2017
    ...S.E.2d 658.118 Id. at 792 (2), 177 S.E.2d 658 (emphasis supplied).119 Id. (emphasis supplied).120 Lamar Elec. Membership Corp. v. Carroll, 89 Ga. App. 440, 453 (1), 79 S.E.2d 832 (1953) (quoting pre-1987 version of OCGA § 46-3-340 (emphasis supplied) (physical precedent only)); see 1937 Ga.......
  • Ozark Border Elec. Co-op. v. Stacy, 7878
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 1961
    ...414, 423, 65 S.E.2d 781, 784; Bush v. Aiken Electric Cooperative, 226 S.C. 442, 85 S.E.2d 716, 717-718; Lamar Electric Membership Corp. v. Carroll, 89 Ga.App. 440, 79 S.E.2d 832, 841. Prosaically adapting Juliet's classical exclamation [Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Sc. 2, Line 'Wh......
  • Alston v. BLACK RIVER ELEC. CO-OP.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 24, 2000
    ...at 423, 65 S.E.2d at 784. See also Bush v. Aiken Elec. Co-op., 226 S.C. 442, 85 S.E.2d 716 (1955). In Lamar Electric Membership Corp. v. Carroll, 89 Ga.App. 440, 79 S.E.2d 832, 840 (1953), the Court One word contained in the Electric Membership Corporation Act designates both the shareholde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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