Meaning of section.

- Ga. L. 1960, p. 181, § 5 (see O.C.G.A. § 46-3-34) means that for a construction work risk to be brought within the duty owed by the owner and maintainer of the high-voltage lines, then the notice required by that section must have been given by the responsible party. Carden v. Georgia Power Co., 231 Ga. 406, 202 S.E.2d 55 (1973).

Construction.

- There is no doubt engendered by O.C.G.A. § 46-3-34 about the necessity of giving notice prior to working in proximity to high-voltage power lines or about the effect of failing to give notice. Thus, persons of common intelligence need not guess at the meaning of that section, and, once in the possession of the necessary facts, should not differ as to its application. Santana v. Georgia Power Co., 269 Ga. 127, 498 S.E.2d 521 (1998).

Duty where notice of work risk given.

- Ga. L. 1960, p. 181, § 5 (see O.C.G.A. § 46-3-34) places duty upon owner and maintainer of high-voltage lines where notice is given of a construction work risk although such owner would otherwise not be liable. Carden v. Georgia Power Co., 231 Ga. 406, 202 S.E.2d 55 (1973).

The phrase "person responsible for the work to be done" is defined in O.C.G.A. § 46-3-30(2) and, when read in conjunction with subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 46-3-34, requires the person or persons immediately responsible for the operation of machinery within eight feet of a high-voltage line to give notice. Green v. Moreland, 200 Ga. App. 167, 407 S.E.2d 119 (1991).

Electric membership corporation could not be absolved of liability even in the absence of statutory notice, where it had not been shown as a matter of law that its lines were properly located and maintained at the time of a fatal accident. Three Notch Elec. Membership Corp. v. Bush, 190 Ga. App. 858, 380 S.E.2d 720, cert. denied, 190 Ga. App. 897, 380 S.E.2d 720 (1989).

Activities of employee not constituting contributory negligence.

- A mere employee of a construction company, not having notification responsibility under Ga. L. 1960, p. 181, § 5 (see O.C.G.A. § 46-3-34), cannot be contributorily negligent as a matter of law just because the employee performed activities within the prohibited eight feet from high-voltage lines. Carden v. Georgia Power Co., 231 Ga. 406, 202 S.E.2d 55 (1973).

Duty to give notice.

- City could not be held liable under the High-voltage Safety Act, O.C.G.A. § 46-3-30 et seq., for injuries to workers where the notice required by O.C.G.A. § 46-3-34 was not given. Callaway v. Crown Crafts, Inc., 223 Ga. App. 297, 477 S.E.2d 435 (1996).

Power company not liable if notice not given.

- Defendant power company could not be held responsible for injuries that occurred during painting of apartment building, where neither the power company nor the utilities protection center was notified of the work as required by statute. Santana v. Georgia Power Co., 269 Ga. 127, 498 S.E.2d 521 (1998).

Assumption of the risk did not apply as a defense to a farm worker's death by electrocution since there was no evidence to show that the farm worker appreciated the danger of the sagging power lines; despite the fact that the power company failed to maintain or inspect its power lines, it was immune from liability since it had no notice that the deceased was working within 10 feet of its lines. Williams v. Mitchell County Elec. Mbrshp. Corp., 255 Ga. App. 668, 566 S.E.2d 356 (2002), aff'd, 276 Ga. 759, 582 S.E.2d 107 (2003).

In a suit by employees of a subcontractor who were electrocuted while working on a construction project, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to a power company based on lack of notice required by O.C.G.A. § 46-3-34. The notice given by the general contractor had nothing to do with the work being performed by the subcontractor. Dalton v. 933 Peachtree, L.P., 291 Ga. App. 123, 661 S.E.2d 156 (2008).

Lack of notice of risk to power company insignificant where lines are not properly located or maintained.

- Although an employee as well as his employer may in some circumstances be a "person responsible" for notifying the line owner or operator under §§ 46-3-30,46-3-32 and this section, lack of such notification is a bar to recovery only where the lines are "otherwise properly located and maintained." Malvarez v. Georgia Power Co., 250 Ga. 568, 300 S.E.2d 145 (1983), superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Mitchell County Elec. Mbrshp. Corp., 279 Ga. 759, 582 S.E.2d 107 (2003).

One whose injury is caused by negligent installation or maintenance of high-voltage lines, even where such injury occurs while engaged in acts enumerated in § 46-3-32 within eight feet of the lines, is not barred by failure to give notice. Malvarez v. Georgia Power Co., 250 Ga. 568, 300 S.E.2d 145 (1983), superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Mitchell County Elec. Mbrshp. Corp., 279 Ga. 759, 582 S.E.2d 107 (2003); Habersham Elec. Membership Corp. v. Dalton, 170 Ga. App. 483, 317 S.E.2d 312 (1984).

Where a victim was electrocuted from overhead power lines, and notwithstanding the existence of evidence that the utility companies may not have forwarded calls for protection, because of the general contractor's cancellation of overhead protection, it was incumbent upon the general contractor to provide the utility companies with the 72-hours notice as required by O.C.G.A. § 46-3-34(d); thus, the utility companies were not liable. Jackson Elec. Mbrshp. Corp. v. Smith, 276 Ga. 208, 576 S.E.2d 878 (2003).

Georgia High-voltage Safety Act, O.C.G.A. § 46-3-30 et seq., barred recovery in a wrongful death action as the decedent failed to give the statutory notice that decedent would be working within 10 feet of a sagging power line with which decedent came into contact and which electrocuted the decedent. Williams v. Mitchell County Elec. Mbrshp. Corp., 276 Ga. 759, 582 S.E.2d 107 (2003).

New notice required if project delayed.

- Under the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 46-3-34(d), which controls notice to the Utilities Protection Center, Inc. (UPC), if there is a delay in the work, new notice to the UPC is required prior to initiating a project. Jackson Elec. Mbrshp. Corp. v. Smith, 276 Ga. 208, 576 S.E.2d 878 (2003).

Cited in Georgia Power Co. v. Carden, 128 Ga. App. 347, 196 S.E.2d 477 (1973); Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc. v. Johnson, 161 Ga. App. 634, 288 S.E.2d 320 (1982); Brown v. City of Fitzgerald, 177 Ga. App. 859, 341 S.E.2d 476 (1986); Butler v. Georgia Power Co., 183 Ga. App. 144, 358 S.E.2d 266 (1987); Lynch v. Georgia Power Co., 185 Ga. App. 256, 363 S.E.2d 777 (1987); Santana v. First Guaranty Mgt. Corp., 223 Ga. App. 472, 477 S.E.2d 857 (1996); Preston v. Georgia Power Co., 227 Ga. App. 449, 489 S.E.2d 573 (1997).

ALR.

- Duty to guard against danger to children by electric wires, 41 A.L.R. 1337; 49 A.L.R. 1053; 100 A.L.R. 621.

Duty of public utility to notify patron in advance of temporary suspension of service, 52 A.L.R. 1078.

Liability of electric light or power company for injury or damage due to condition of service lines or electrical appliance maintained by one to whom it furnishes electric current, 134 A.L.R. 507.

Liability of electric power or telephone company for injury or damage by lightning transmitted on wires, 25 A.L.R.2d 722.