GA Code § 46-3-33 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 46 - Public Utilities and Public Transportation|Chapter 3 - Electrical Service|Article 1 - Generation and Distribution of Electricity Generally|Part 2 - High-Voltage Safety|§ 46-3-33. Required Conditions for Commencing Work Within Ten Feet of High-Voltage Line

 No person, firm, or corporation shall commence any work as defined in paragraph (6) of Code Section 46-3-32 if at any time any person or any item specified in paragraph (6) of Code Section 46-3-32 may be brought within ten feet of any high-voltage line unless and until:    The person responsible for the work has given the notice required by Code Section 46-3-34; and   The owner or operator of such high-voltage line has effectively guarded against danger from accidental contact by either deenergizing and grounding the line, relocating it, or installing protective covering or mechanical barriers, whichever safeguard is deemed by the owner or operator to be feasible under the circumstances.     (Code 1981, §46-3-33, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 2141, § 1.)   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 1992, p. 2141, § 1, redesignated former Code Section 46-3-33 as present Code Section 46-3-34.   In light of the similarity of the provisions, decisions under former Code Section 46-33-32 are included in the annotations for this Code section.   Law reviews.   - For survey article on construction law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 55 (2007). For survey article on local government law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 263 (2008).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Recovery for injuries suffered during prohibited act.    - Violation of former § 46-3-32 does not necessarily bar recovery for injuries suffered while engaged in a prohibited act, in view of the provision of former § 46-3-39 that "nothing in this Act shall be construed or applied as limiting or reducing the duty or degree of care now applicable to owners or operators of such high-voltage lines with respect to damage or loss to person or property." Reighard v. Georgia Power Co., 119 Ga. App. 640, 168 S.E.2d 639 (1969), disapproved on other grounds, Carden v. Georgia Power Co., 231 Ga. 456, 202 S.E.2d 55 (1973).   Discretion as to protective measures.    - O.C.G.A. § 46-3-33(2) clearly gives an owner or operator of high-voltage electric lines discretion in deciding what protective measures to take. Golden v. Vickery, 285 Ga. App. 216, 645 S.E.2d 695 (2007), cert. denied, No. S07C1359, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 664 (Ga. 2007).    Electric membership corporation could not be absolved of liability even in the absence of statutory notice, where it had not been shown as a matter of law that its lines were properly located and maintained at the time of a fatal accident. Three Notch Elec. Membership Corp. v. Bush, 190 Ga. App. 858, 380 S.E.2d 720, cert. denied, 190 Ga. App. 897, 380 S.E.2d 720 (1989).   Businesses and activities covered by Act.    - The High-voltage Safety Act, O.C.G.A. § 46-3-30 et seq., is directed only toward businesses whose usual activities would foreseeably bring their employees within close proximity to voltage lines, and the kinds of activities intended to be covered are not random or casual exposures to lines. Southern Orchard Supply v. Boyer, 221 Ga. App. 626, 472 S.E.2d 157 (1996).    A farm laborer injured while replacing irrigation pipe when the laborer attempted to raise a pipe near a voltage line, without looking up at the line, rather than move to a different, safer location, could not hold the employer liable under the High-voltage Safety Act, O.C.G.A. § 46-3-30 et seq. Southern Orchard Supply v. Boyer, 221 Ga. App. 626, 472 S.E.2d 157 (1996).    An employer was not strictly liable under the High-voltage Safety Act, O.C.G.A. § 46-3-30, for injuries to employees incurred while they were working within the danger area of high voltage wires. Callaway v. Crown Crafts, Inc., 223 Ga. App. 297, 477 S.E.2d 435 (1996).   Lack of notice of risk to power company insignificant where lines negligently installed or maintained.    - One whose injury is caused by negligent installation or maintenance of high-voltage lines, even where such injury occurs while engaged in acts enumerated in former Code section46-3-32 within eight (now ten) feet of the lines, is not barred by failure to give notice. Malvarez v. Georgia Power Co., 250 Ga. 568, 300 S.E.2d 145 (1983), superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Mitchell County Elec. Mbrshp. Corp., 279 Ga. 759, 582 S.E.2d 107 (2003); Habersham Elec. Membership Corp. v. Dalton, 170 Ga. App. 483, 317 S.E.2d 312 (1984).    Although an employee as well as his employer may in some circumstances be a "person responsible" for notifying the line owner or operator under §§ 46-3-32,46-3-34 and former Code section46-3-32, lack of such notification is a bar to recovery only where the lines are "otherwise properly located and maintained." Malvarez v. Georgia Power Co., 250 Ga. 568, 300 S.E.2d 145 (1983), superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Mitchell County Elec. Mbrshp. Corp., 279 Ga. 759, 582 S.E.2d 107 (2003).   Notice requirement.    - Georgia High-voltage Safety Act, O.C.G.A. § 46-3-30 et seq., barred recovery in a wrongful death action as the decedent failed to give the statutory notice that decedent would be working within 10 feet of a sagging power line with which decedent came into contact and which electrocuted the decedent. Williams v. Mitchell County Elec. Mbrshp. Corp., 276 Ga. 759, 582 S.E.2d 107 (2003).   Failure to give notice allowed power company to maintain indemnity action against employer.    - Purpose of O.C.G.A. § 46-3-40(b), allowing a power company to pursue an indemnity action against an employer whose workers were injured by contact with high voltage power lines because the workers failed to notify the power company of the work, was to prevent injury, a legitimate legislative purpose, and the purpose was served because the threat of an indemnity action would motivate employers to follow the notice requirement and thereby prevent accidents. Therefore, the statute did not violate substantive due process. Glass Sys. v. Ga. Power Co., 288 Ga. 85, 703 S.E.2d 605 (2010).    Cited in King v. King, 124 Ga. App. 814, 186 S.E.2d 432 (1971); Savannah Elec. & Power Co. v. Holton, 127 Ga. App. 447, 193 S.E.2d 866 (1972); Georgia Power Co. v. Carden, 128 Ga. App. 347, 196 S.E.2d 477 (1973); Carden v. Georgia Power Co., 231 Ga. 456, 202 S.E.2d 55 (1973); Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc. v. Johnson, 161 Ga. App. 634, 288 S.E.2d 320 (1982); Brown v. City of Fitzgerald, 177 Ga. App. 859, 341 S.E.2d 476 (1986); Santana v. First Guaranty Mgt. Corp., 223 Ga. App. 472, 477 S.E.2d 857 (1996); Preston v. Georgia Power Co., 227 Ga. App. 449, 489 S.E.2d 573 (1997).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 27A Am. Jur. 2d, Energy and Power Sources, § 167.   C.J.S.   - 29 C.J.S., Electricity, § 41.   ALR.    - Duty to guard against danger to children by electric wires, 41 A.L.R. 1337; 49 A.L.R. 1053; 100 A.L.R. 621.    Liability of one maintaining high-tension electric wires over private property of another for injuries thereby inflicted, 46 A.L.R. 1021.    Induction, conduction and electrolysis, 56 A.L.R. 421.    Restoring electric current after automatic breaking of current as negligence, 57 A.L.R. 1065.   Liability of electric power or telephone company for injury or damage by lightning transmitted on wires, 25 A.L.R.2d 722.