Unless danger against contact with high voltage overhead lines has been effectively guarded against as provided by section 40-360.43:
1. 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 is possible that the person performing the function or activity could move or be placed closer to any high voltage overhead line or if it is possible that any part of any tool or material used by the person could be brought closer to any high voltage overhead line during the performance of any function or activity than the following clearances:
(a) For lines rated fifty kv or less, six feet of clearance.
(b) For lines rated over fifty kv, six feet plus four-tenths of an inch for each kv over fifty kv.
2. A person or business entity shall not individually, through an agent or employee or as an agent or employee, operate any mechanical equipment or hoisting equipment or any load of such equipment, any part of which is capable of vertical, lateral or swinging motion closer to any high voltage overhead line than the following clearances:
(a) For lines rated fifty kv or less, ten feet of clearance.
(b) For lines rated over fifty kv, ten feet plus four-tenths of an inch for each kv over fifty kv.
Notes of Decisions
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Shea, 742 P.2d 851 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 13× ““Person” and “business entity” for purposes of § 40-360.42 are defined in § 40-360.41. That section provides in relevant part as follows: 4.”
Monares v. Wilcoxson, 736 P.2d 1171 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 7× “Wilcoxson argues the court improperly granted motions for summary judgment finding him liable as a matter of law pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 40-360.42 and 40-360.43 and should have reconsidered its ruling in light of the evidence received at trial because the statutes were not…”
Cohen v. Salt River Proj., 736 P.2d 809 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. §§ 40-360.42 and 40-360.43 state that anyone responsible for performing the work or requiring others to do it must promptly notify the public utility if the work will bring people or materials within six feet of the power line.”
Citizens Utils. Co. v. New West Homes, Inc., 848 P.2d 308 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “forming the function or activity could move or be placed closer to any high voltage overhead line or if it is possible that any part of any tool or material used by the person could be brought closer to any high voltage overhead line during the performance of any function or…”
Hasse v. Avondale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “AVONDALE Decision of the Court ¶13 Hasse argues the City is a “person or business entity” that required him to perform an activity that caused him to contact a high voltage powerline without the appropriate safeguards, and therefore violated its duty to him under § 40-360.42.…”
Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Kokosing Constr. Co., 767 P.2d 40 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“43 by ignoring the language preceding it in § 40-360.42 which reads: Unless danger against contact with high voltage overhead lines has been effectively guarded against as provided by § 40-360.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.42(1) — 2 cases
Cohen v. Salt River Proj., 736 P.2d 809 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“A.R.S. §§ 40-360.42 and 40-360.43 state that anyone responsible for performing the work or requiring others to do it must promptly notify the public utility if the work will bring people or materials within six feet of the power line.”
Hasse v. Avondale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“AVONDALE Decision of the Court ¶13 Hasse argues the City is a “person or business entity” that required him to perform an activity that caused him to contact a high voltage powerline without the appropriate safeguards, and therefore violated its duty to him under § 40-360.42.…”
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.