In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Authorized person" means:
(a) An employee of a public utility that produces, transmits or delivers electricity.
(b) An employee of a public utility that provides and whose work relates to communication services or state, county or municipal agencies that have authorized circuit construction on or near the poles or structures of a public utility.
(c) An employee of an industrial plant whose work relates to the electrical system of the industrial plant.
(d) An employee of a cable television operator, video service provider or communication services company or an employee of a contractor of a cable television operator, video service provider or communication services company if specifically authorized by the owner of the poles to make attachments for cable television or communication services or video services.
(e) An employee or agent of state, county or municipal agencies that have or whose work relates to overhead electrical lines or circuit construction or conductors on poles or structures of any type.
2. "High voltage" means voltage in excess of six hundred volts measured between conductors or between a conductor and the ground.
3. "Overhead line" means all bare or insulated electrical conductors installed aboveground.
4. "Person" or "business entity" means those parties that contract to perform any function or activity on any land, building, highway or other premises.
5. "Public utility" includes public service corporations, municipally owned systems and districts subject to article XIII, section 7, Constitution of Arizona.
Notes of Decisions
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Shea, 742 P.2d 851 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 15× “Ruelas sued APS, who in turn filed a third party complaint against Shea, Trevizo, and Ramos, claiming that they violated A.R.S. § 40-360.41, et seq. That act establishes procedures whereby a public utility company, such as APS, can obtain indemnification from businesses and…”
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 46 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 2× “That act regulates activity near high-voltage overhead lines, imposing statutory duties on contractors working in proximity to such lines and prohibiting them from requiring their employees or any other person to perform any function near those lines without first having entered…”
Cohen v. Salt River Proj., 736 P.2d 809 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Central to our resolution of this case is the interpretation of the High Voltage Power Lines and Safety Restrictions Act (the Act), A.R.S. §§ 40-360.41 to 40-360.45, effective July 31, 1980.”
Citizens Utils. Co. v. New West Homes, Inc., 848 P.2d 308 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “for statutory indemnity pursuant to the High Voltage Power Lines and Safety Restrictions Act, A.R.S. §§ 40-360.41 through 40-360.-45. The trial court granted Citizens’ motion for summary judgment against both defendants, and New West appeals, contending that the judgment…”
Hasse v. Avondale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “42(1) states: A person or business entity shall not, individually or through an agent or employee, require any other person to perform any function or activity upon any land, building, highway or other premises if at any time during the performance of any function or activity it…”
Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Kokosing Constr. Co., 767 P.2d 40 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The injured worker filed a complaint against TEP, which in turn filed a third-party complaint against Kokosing for indemnification on grounds that Kokosing had violated the High Voltage Power Lines and Safety Restrictions Act, A.R.S. §§ 40-360.41 to 40-360.45. It is from the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.41(4) — 3 cases
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Shea, 742 P.2d 851 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Ruelas sued APS, who in turn filed a third party complaint against Shea, Trevizo, and Ramos, claiming that they violated A.R.S. § 40-360.41, et seq. That act establishes procedures whereby a public utility company, such as APS, can obtain indemnification from businesses and…”
Cohen v. Salt River Proj., 736 P.2d 809 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Central to our resolution of this case is the interpretation of the High Voltage Power Lines and Safety Restrictions Act (the Act), A.R.S. §§ 40-360.41 to 40-360.45, effective July 31, 1980.”
Hasse v. Avondale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“42(1) states: A person or business entity shall not, individually or through an agent or employee, require any other person to perform any function or activity upon any land, building, highway or other premises if at any time during the performance of any function or activity it…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.