TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Albany v. James

City of Albany v. James, 147 S.E. 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 28, 1929
Docket
No. 18812
Judges
Stephens
Citations
147 S.E. 39639 Ga. App. 3791929 Ga. App. LEXIS 323

Opinion of the Court — Stephens

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Stephens, J.

1. A person is under a duty so to use his own property as .not to injure another. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non Isedas. One who maintains dangerously and highly electrically charged wires on his own premises, in such close proximity to the adjoining premises of another as to render the wires so charged dangerous to persons occupying and enjoying the latter premises, is under a duty to exercise due care to render the wires safe to persons on the adjoining premises who are likely to come in contact with the wires. This duty is owing to a person lawfully on the adjoining premises, although he may be employed and working there in close proximity to the wires as a servant in the employ of an independent contractor who only owes him the duty to furnish him a safe place to work. This case is distinguishable from the case of Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Lawley, 33 Ga. App. 375 ( 126 S. E. 273 ). In that case the defendant’s dangerously charged wires were not maintained in dangerous proximity to another’s property, but the person injured by coming in contact with the wires, had come upon the defendant’s premises, and, in the prosecution of construction work under an independent contractor, had come into dangerous proximity to the wires and was injured. It was there held that the defendant was not negligent, since the wires had not been erected and installed in an originally unsafe and improper manner, and since the dangerous proximity to the wires arose by reason of the conditions created by the workmen themselves during the progress of the work as directed by the independent contractor, and that the defendant did not know, and could not have anticipated, that the independent contractor did not, or would not, know of the danger, and had failed, or would fail, to warn the injured workmen thereof.

2. Where a city maintains in one of its public alleys dangerously and highly electrically charged wires within twelve or fifteen inches of the premises of another, upon which a building is being erected close up to the property line abutting on the alley, upon which workmen are engaged in the construction of the building, with the knowledge of the city, although working under an independent contractor, the city is under a duty to these workmen to exercise due care to maintain the wires in a safe condition as respects insulation or otherwise, so as to prevent injury to the workmen, who in the progress of the work are likely to become injured by coming in contact with the wires. Rome Railway & Light Co. v. Jones, 33 Ga. App. 617 ( 127 S. E. 786 ) ; Rome Railway & Light Co. v. Jones, 37 Ga. App. 244 ( 139 S. E. 579 ); Illingsworth v. Boston Light Co., 161 Mass. 583 ( 37 N. E. 778 , 25 L. R. A. 552); Griffin v. United Electric Light Co., 164 Mass. 492 ( 41 N. E. 675 , 32 L. R. A. 400, 49 Am. St. R. 477 ) ; Stevens v. United Gas & Electric Co., 73 N. H. 159 ( 60 Atl. 848 , 70 L. R. A. 119) ; Perham v. Portland Electric Co., 33 Ore. 451 (6) ( 53 Pac. 14 , 40 L. R. A. 799, 72 Am. St. R. 730 ).

3. The petition set out a cause of action, and the court properly overruled the demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Milner & Farlcas, for plaintiff in error. Bennet & Peacoclc, contra.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1935: 11952: 11966: 119352026peak 1935 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Crosby v. Savannah Electric & Power Co.150 S.E.2d 563 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
  2. Welch v. City of Camilla72 S.E.2d 83 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952)
  3. Smith v. Appalachian Electric Power Co.74 F.2d 647 (4th Cir. 1935)

Most recent

  1. Crosby v. Savannah Electric & Power Co.150 S.E.2d 563 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
  2. Welch v. City of Camilla72 S.E.2d 83 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952)
  3. Smith v. Appalachian Electric Power Co.74 F.2d 647 (4th Cir. 1935)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Perham v. Portland Elec. Co., 40 L.R.A. 799 (Or. 1898) 62
Illingsworth v. Boston Elec. Light Co., 25 L.R.A. 552 (Mass. 1894) 44
Griffin v. United Elec. Light Co., 32 L.R.A. 400 (Mass. 1895) 39
Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Lawley, 126 S.E. 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925) 25
Rome Ry. & Light Co. v. Jones, 127 S.E. 786 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925) 24
Rome Ry. & Light Co. v. Jones, 139 S.E. 579 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927) 6
Stevens v. United Gas & Elec. Co., 70 L.R.A. 119 (N.H. 1905) 47

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list