A. If any person or business entity desires to temporarily carry on any function, activity, work or operation in closer proximity to any high voltage overhead line than permitted by this article, the person or business entity responsible for performing the work shall promptly notify the public utility operating the high voltage overhead line. The person or business entity may perform the work only after satisfactorily mutual arrangements, including coordination of work and construction schedules, have been made between the public utility operating the lines and the person or business entity responsible for performing the work. Arrangements may include placement of temporary mechanical barriers to separate and prevent contact between material, equipment or persons and the high voltage overhead lines or temporary deenergization and grounding or temporary relocation or raising of the high voltage overhead lines.
B. The person or business entity responsible for performing the work in the vicinity of the high voltage overhead lines shall pay any actual expenses of the public utility operating high voltage overhead lines in providing arrangements for clearances, except in instances where the public utility operating high voltage overhead lines has installed lines within ten feet of an existing fixture or structure after the fixture or structure has been in place at the permanent location. The public utility is not required to provide the arrangements for clearances until an agreement for payment has been made.
C. The public utility shall commence construction for temporary clearances within five working days of an agreement for payment, if required, or from the date of the request of the person responsible for the work. Once initiated, the clearance work will continue without interruption to completion.
Notes of Decisions
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Shea, 742 P.2d 851 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 9× “Division 2 of this court recently held, “Further, we find no constitutional infirmity in the statutory provision for indemnification where the person or business entity working adjacent to power lines has failed to give the requisite notice, [under A.R.S. § 40-360.43] even where…”
Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Dooley-Jones & Assocs., Inc., 746 P.2d 510 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 40-360.43 requires any person or business entity who desires to temporarily carry on any function, activity or work within six feet of a high voltage overhead line to promptly notify the utility operating the high voltage line before performing the work.”
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 46 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 40-360.43. In language quite similar to that used in the statutes applicable to the present case, the Overhead Lines Act further provides as follows: If a violation of this article results in physical or electrical contact with any high voltage overhead line, the…”
Cohen v. Salt River Proj., 736 P.2d 809 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× ““Unless danger against contact with high voltage overhead lines has been effectively guarded against as provided by § 40-360.43: (1) A person or business entity shall not .”
Monares v. Wilcoxson, 736 P.2d 1171 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Activity near overhead line; safety restrictions Unless danger against contact with high voltage overhead lines has been effectively guarded against as provided by § 40-360.43: 1. A person or business entity shall not, individually or through an agent or employee, require any…”
Citizens Utils. Co. v. New West Homes, Inc., 848 P.2d 308 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “STATUTORY INDEMNITY The pertinent provisions of the act read as follows: Unless danger against contact with high voltage overhead lines has been effectively guarded against as provided by § 40-360.43: *226 1. A person or business entity shall not, individually or through an…”
Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Kokosing Constr. Co., 767 P.2d 40 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 40-360.43. If the utility fails to receive such notice, it may seek indemnity from the party performing the work for “all costs and expenses, including damages to third persons, incurred by the public utility as a result of the contact.”
Hasse v. Avondale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 40-360.43; Arizona Pub. Serv. Co.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.43(A) — 2 cases
Cohen v. Salt River Proj., 736 P.2d 809 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
““Unless danger against contact with high voltage overhead lines has been effectively guarded against as provided by § 40-360.43: (1) A person or business entity shall not .”
Hasse v. Avondale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“A.R.S. § 40-360.43; Arizona Pub. Serv. Co.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.43(B) — 1 case
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Shea, 742 P.2d 851 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Division 2 of this court recently held, “Further, we find no constitutional infirmity in the statutory provision for indemnification where the person or business entity working adjacent to power lines has failed to give the requisite notice, [under A.R.S. § 40-360.43] even where…”
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.