Malvarez v. Georgia Power Co., 39233
| Decision Date | 16 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 39233,39233 |
| Parties | MALVAREZ v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
R. Douglas Lackey, Harold D. Corlew, Corlew & Lackey, Atlanta, for Maria Malvarez.
Robert L. Pennington, Kevin C. Greene, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore Joe C. Freeman, Jr., Atlanta, for Georgia Power Co., et al.
This is a certified question from the Court of Appeals. The husband of appellant Maria Malvarez was electrocuted while engaged in routine building maintenance when he moved a ladder and contacted high-voltage power lines owned by Georgia Power. Appellant sued for wrongful death, contending that appellee was negligent in placing the lines less than eight feet from the building and in failing to insulate them against the type of accidental contact which occurred.
Georgia Power denies that the lines were within eight feet of the building but contends that if they were, then it is absolutely protected from liability by the provisions of OCGA § 46-3-30 et seq. (Code Ann. § 34B-201 et seq.). Section 46-3-32 (Code Ann. § 34B-203) expressly prohibits certain activities, including erection of tools and apparatus, in the area of high-voltage lines if at any time during such operation the activity will be brought within eight feet of the lines, except where preventive measures have been taken to insulate, de-energize, or move the lines. Section 46-3-33 (Code Ann. § 34B-205) requires that when any such operation is to be performed within eight feet of high-voltage lines, the persons responsible for the work shall promptly notify the owner of the lines, who upon notification and within a reasonable time, shall perform such acts as are reasonably necessary to guard against danger from accidental contact. Section 46-3-30 (Code Ann. § 34B-201) defines "persons responsible" to include both employers and employees involved in certain activities related to handling of tools and construction near power lines.
In Williams v. Nico Industries, Inc., 157 Ga.App. 814(2)(a), 278 S.E.2d 677 (1981) (cert. den.), the Court of Appeals, relying on Carden v. Ga. Power Co., 231 Ga. 456, 202 S.E.2d 55 (1973), held that where the defendant power company had not received the statutorily required notice, it owed no duty to a worker injured by contact with its lines. Williams contended that Georgia Power was neligent in maintaining a line six feet, four inches from the building on which he was working when injured. However, he failed to support this allegation with evidence. In the earlier case of Savannah Electric & Power Co. v. Holton, 127 Ga.App. 447, 193 S.E.2d 866 (1972), the Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment for the survivor of a deceased employee in a situation where no notice was given, holding that the employer's failure to provide the required notice was irrelevant in an action on behalf of the employee. The holding in Savannah Electric was approved in Carden v. Georgia Power, supra, the same case upon which the holding in Williams v. Nico Industries, supra, was based. The Court of Appeals therefore asks for a resolution of the following question: "Where an employer fails to comply with its duty under ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Six Flags Over Ga. II, L.P. v. Martin
...See Williams v. Nico Indus., Inc., 157 Ga.App. 814, 278 S.E.2d 677 (1981), disapproved of on other grounds by Malvarez v. Ga. Power Co., 250 Ga. 568, 300 S.E.2d 145 (1983) (holding that a "substantial fact issue" existed regarding whether the property owner or a general contractor or both w......
-
Housing Authority of Atlanta v. Famble
...is contained in Williams v. Nico Indus., 157 Ga.App. 814, 278 S.E.2d 677 [overruled in part on other grounds in Malvarez v. Ga. Power Co., 250 Ga. 568, 569, 300 S.E.2d 145], wherein a general contractor in charge of renovation of an apartment building was among those sued. That case explain......
-
Williams v. Mitchell County Elec. Corp.
...properly located and maintained,'" failure to give notice of work within close proximity did not bar recovery. Malvarez v. Ga. Power Co., 250 Ga. 568, 569, 300 S.E.2d 145 (1983); accord Savannah Elec. &c. Co. v. Holton, 127 Ga.App. 447, 450-452(3), 193 S.E.2d 866 (1972). In our view the pow......
-
Preston v. Georgia Power Co.
...utility nevertheless must show that the lines were properly located and maintained in order to bar recovery. Malvarez v. Ga. Power Co., 250 Ga. 568, 569, 300 S.E.2d 145 (1983). In so holding, the Supreme Court pointed to the language of former OCGA § 46-3-38 (Code Ann. § 34B-209), which pro......