Court Opinion

ID: 9613264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:15:41.043999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:27.288738
License: Public Domain

Clarke, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
Although the majority correctly states the law with respect to the maintenance of a dangerous instrumentality adjacent to a public way, I must respectfully dissent because I do not believe the facts in this case authorize the conclusion reached. The result of the majority depends upon the holding that an ordinary iron pin placed in an ordi*56nary manner to mark a property corner constitutes a dangerous nuisance. I would not so hold.
Cases relied upon involve an open cellar adjacent to a sidewalk, a ravine converted into a reservoir adjacent to a public road without fence or guardrail, and an excavation adjacent to a public way. Hutson v. King, 95 Ga. 271 (22 SE 615) (1894); City Council of Augusta v. Dozier, 126 Ga. 524 (55 SE 234) (1906); Nashville, Chattanooga & St. L. R. Co. v. Cook, 177 Ga. 196 (170 SE 28) (1833).
Careful reading of these three cases leads one to the conclusion that the act complained of must be more than the installation and maintenance of a surveyor’s pin. The phrase used in Hutson is not “dangerous instrumentality,” but rather “dangerous nuisance.” This is not contradicted in either Dozier or Cook.
All three of the cases clearly infer that in order to be a dangerous nuisance the condition must possess some characteristic of inherent danger. Hutson announces the following rule: “Whatever may be the duty of an owner of premises with reference to persons who unlawfully intrude thereon, such owner has no right to maintain upon his premises any dangerous nuisance which might imperil the lives of those persons who from lawful necessity or convenience might pass along, and by accident or some superior force, and without fault upon their own part, fall or be thrown from the sidewalk or from a public thoroughfare into such excavation. A man must so guard his premises situated immediately adjacent to a public highway, as that one who of necessity deviates slightly therefrom may not be injured.” Hutson v. King, supra at 276. Dozier states the rule thusly: “An owner of land abutting upon a highway is liable to travelers for injuries resulting from the maintenance of those things upon his property which are likely to render travel upon the highway unsafe.” City Council of Augusta v. Dozier, supra at 526. Cook states the rule in the same language. I do not feel that a surveyor’s iron pin falls in the same category with those conditions.
The record in this case indicates the iron pin in question to have been a steel reinforcing rod and to have protruded above the ground a distance of approximately two inches. There is no evidence of any remarkable characteristics. Iron pins are a common and useful means of identifying property corners and they and other similar monuments serve a useful purpose. The installation and maintenance of permanent monuments identifying land corners even preserves the good order of society itself. From earliest times the law not only authorized but protected landmarks. Interference with landmarks of another was a violation of the Mosaic law. See Deuteronomy 19:14; 27:17; Job 24:2; Proverbs 22:28, 23:10. Being a protected instrument, an iron pin cannot be compared with an unguarded waterfilled ravine, an excavation, or an open cellar adjacent to a sidewalk. It does not amount to a nui*57sanee and is not inherently dangerous. To hold otherwise will deter the important practice of clearly marking landlines.
Decided June 10, 1986.
Newton, Smith & McIntyre, Wilson R. Smith, for appellant.
A. G. Wells, Jr., R. Stephen Sims, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Weltner join in this dissent.