Court Opinion

ID: 9760925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:24:18.98529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:18.783187
License: Public Domain

GRANT, Justice,
concurring.
Lightning is ordinarily considered an act of God or nature. (See definition of act of God, Black’s Law DICTIONARY 33 (6th ed. 1990)). It is, however, an act of God only when it is uncontrolled and uninfluenced by human intervention. If the plaintiff had been struck by lightning uncontrolled and uninfluenced by human intervention while walking down the sidewalk, this would be considered an act of God for which the defendant would not be liable.4 The defendant, however, subjected the plaintiff to a side flash from lightning that had been diverted from over the area of the church building and channeled down the wire from the lightning rod to the ground by the sidewalk. This side flash was brought about by human intervention in the form of improper installation of the lightning protection system. There was evidence that if the system had been properly installed, there would not have been a side flash to injure Gibson. In their effort to protect the church and those inside, the church subjected people walking down the sidewalk to the danger of a side flash. Thus, *564the jury’s finding of proximate cause must be upheld.

. In the recent case of Hames v. State, 808 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn.1991), the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the risk of lightning was too remote to impose legal liability for failure to provide protection against lightning. See also Davis v. Country Club, Inc., 381 S.W.2d 308 (Tenn.Ct.App.1963).