Court Opinion

ID: 9564575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:03:29.691142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:31.927166
License: Public Domain

Smith, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I fully concur in the majority’s affirmance of summary judgment in favor of the general contractor. I must respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s reversal of the grant of summary judgment to the building’s owner and manager, because I believe the record shows that Bossard’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.
As in Callaway v. Crown Crafts, 223 Ga. App. 297 (477 SE2d 435) (1996); Southern Orchard Supply v. Boyer, 221 Ga. App. 626 (472 SE2d 157) (1996); and Leonardson v. Ga. Power Co., 210 Ga. App. 574 (436 SE2d 690) (1993), cited by the majority, the plaintiff knew he was working in close proximity to overhead wires. In the cited cases, we held that because the plaintiff in each case knew the overhead wires were in the area and was aware of the danger posed by contact with energized wires, the proximate cause of injury in each case was the plaintiff’s own actions in making contact with the wires. I cannot find any meaningful legal distinction between the facts of those cases and the facts before us today.
Neither can I agree with the majority that this case is akin to Williams v. Nico Indus., 157 Ga. App. 814 (278 SE2d 677) (1981), overruled in part on other grounds, Malvarez v. Ga. Power Co., 250 Ga. 568 (300 SE2d 145) (1983). In Williams, the testimony of both the injured painter and an eyewitness showed that the painter was not aware of any power lines in the vicinity where he was painting. Id. at 815 (1). Here, in contrast, it is undisputed that Bossard was aware of the proximity of the power lines; not only were they fully visible, but he and his co-worker were intentionally trying to avoid them, if for other reasons. In my view, it is “plain and indisputable” that a prudent person working at roof level, aware of overhead power lines and possessing knowledge of the hazards of touching a live wire, may not assume that overhead lines are not energized but must exercise extreme caution to avoid them. I would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the building’s owner and manager.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Pope joins in this dissent.
*807Hall, Booth, Smith & Slover, Heather C. McGrotty, Jason P. King, Hawkins & Parnell, Peter R. York, William H. Major III, for appellees.