Court Opinion

ID: 9602758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:59:37.383682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:06.366228
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The suggestion of counsel for the defendant that-in its extensive statement of facts the court omitted the allegation that “plaintiff'avers . . that the resulting tort was the proximate cause of the death of the plaintiff’s husband, who in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence climbed the said ladder one foggy, misty dark morning . . The measuring rod in the hand of plaintiff’s husband touched the wire and electrocuted plaintiff’s husband,” is well taken. The court, however, did not overlook the allegation but, in endeavoring to set out only the material allegations, excluded it. For the state of the weather to have borne upon the question of the plaintiff’s husband’s being contributorily negligent, it would have been necessary to assume a knowledge of the dangerous propensities of the uninsulated wire, and the petition specifically negatives such knowledge on the part of the plaintiff’s husband.
For the principle of law announced in headnote 2 of Columbus Railroad Co. v. Dorsey, 119 Ga. 363 (46 S. E. 635), to have been applicable to the facts alleged in the present petition, it *616would have again been necessary to assume that the plaintiff’s husband knew the dangerous nature of the uninsulated wire, which, as we have pointed out above, was specifically negatived.
In preparing the original opinion in this case the court carefully perused the decision of McCullough v. Georgia, Power Co., 81 Ga. App. 293 (58 S. E. 2d, 505), and we have done so again in considering the motion for rehearing, but find nothing in that decision in conflict with what has been held in this case. In that case the first division of this court pointed out in the decision: “Unless the petition alleges facts which charge the defendant with the duty of anticipating that an attempt would be made to extract the pipe without disconnecting it and that those working with, the pipe would be negligent in handling it, it would not set forth a cause of action because it would show no reason why the defendant owed anyone a duty to insulate the wires or put them higher from the ground [27.76 feet] under the facts alleged. The allegations on this question do not specifically contain the statement that the defendant knew that the pipe might be taken from the ground without being disconnected, but if they did, it is not alleged that the defendant should have known that the men working with the pipe would negligently permit it to get out of control and come in contact with the electric wires. . . We think the petition is defective in this particular. It does not allege facts charging the defendant with the duty of anticipating the negligence of the men working with the pipe.” It is at once clear that the petition in that case differs vastly from the present petition. The pleader in that case did not charge thé defendant with knowledge that the well-pipe there in question would have to be removed without disconnecting its 20-foot lengths. Had this been done the pipe would not, in the ordinary course of things, have come in contact with the wires of the defendant, which were 27.76 feet above the ground at the point of the plaintiff’s well. But even if the petition be construed to charge the defendant with knowledge that the pipe would not be disconnected, it did not charge the defendant with knowledge that the plaintiff and the men working with him would likely let the pipe get out of control and come in contact with the wires. In the present case, the petition charges that the use of the 25-foot pipe in measuring the oil was *617a practice of many years’ standing, and antedated the defendant’s placing of the uninsulated, high-powered transmission wires within 10 feet of the point on the ladder where the employees of the Camilla Cotton Oil Company stood to measure the oil. Under such circumstances, the defendant should have anticipated that in the ordinary course of human events the pipe might be brought into contact with the wires. For illustration, suppose the defendant, or any power company, should string such wires 10 feet above the level of the ground, would we not say at once that it should have anticipated that in the ordinary course of human events, considering the various objects carried by people, the various vehicles, etc., which would come within the ambit of the wires, that someone might be brought into contact with such wires strung at such a height. We think that the facts alleged in the present petition make the positions of the defendant and the employees of the Camilla Cotton Oil Company analogous. The defendant was chargeable with knowledge of the use of the metal pipe to measure the oil, and yet it placed the transmission wires within the ambit of that pipe. Furthermore, the petition in the present case does not show, as did the petition in the McCullough case, the circumstances under which the pipe came into contact with the wire, whether through the negligence of the plaintiff’s husband or otherwise.
The principle of the intervening act being the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, as illustrated by the case of Georgia Power Co. v. Wood, 43 Ga. App. 542 (159 S. E. 729), is applicable only where there was no duty on the defendant to anticipate such intervening act; or, as illustrated in Moore v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 30 Ga. App. 466 (118 S. E. 471), the plaintiff, with knowledge of the danger of the act which he was about to perform, should have taken steps to avoid the consequent damage which he had reason to apprehend might ensue.
The court was fully aware of the principle stated in Jackson v. Goldin, 26 Ga. App. 283 (106 S. E. 12). So much so that the very paragraph containing the principle which counsel for the defendant would have us consider is quoted verbatim in the opinion and followed by a citation of the Jackson case, and we believe was accurately applied in reaching our decision.
*618We have reconsidered every case cited in the briefs of counsel for the defendant- and for the plaintiff, and particularly those cases relied on in the motion for rehearing, but in spite of the earnestness with which counsel has presented the defendant’s position, we must adhere to the judgment originally rendered in this case.

Judgment adhered to on rehearing.

Gardner, P.J., and Townsend, J., concur.