Court Opinion

ID: 9777264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:05:04.378824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:51.133149
License: Public Domain

Hale, Judge
(concurring).
Because of a dissent I am this day filing in the case of Kingsport Utilities, Inc., v. Brown, from the Circuit Court of Sullivan County, I think it best to state my reasons for my concurrence in the result reached in the instant case.
In Kingsport Utilities, Inc., v. Brown, I set forth my views on the law applicable, and concluded there was no evidence of improper construction or dangerous maintenance of the line in question, in that the undisputed evidence showed construction and maintenance in accordance with the National Electrical Safety Code.
*189In the instant case the defendant was not allowed to plead and rely npon the aforementioned National Electrical Safety Code due to failure to file special pleas within the time allowed. And there is material evidence that the line in question at this particular point was not maintained at a proper and safe distance from the ground. In addition the defendant had knowledge of the work being done at this point. These factors distinguish this case from Kingsport Utilities v. Brown.
I am unable to agree with that part of the opinion in the instant case, 281 S. W. (2d) 508, which said the defendant was “under a duty to patrol and inspect said lines at frequent intervals to see that the lines did not later become unsafe and dangerous by changing conditions, such as, overhanging tree branches, erection of buildings, etc. ’ ’ In practical effect, this would be to hold the utility liable as an insurer.