O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-1-14 (2019)

Abatement of hazard from abandoned well or hole; recovery costs; use of county funds

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As used in this Code section, the term ‘‘abandoned well or hole’’ means any manmade opening upon the surface of the earth which is ten feet or more in depth and which has not been used for a period of 60 days. The term does not include ditches; sand or gravel pits; stone, marble, or slate quarries; clay pits; surface mines as defined in Part 3 of Article 2 of Chapter 4 of Title 12, the ‘‘Georgia Surface Mining Act of 1968’’; or geologic boreholes as defined in Part 3 of Article 3 of Chapter 5 of Title 12, the ‘‘Water Well Standards Act of 1985.’’ (b) Whenever it is brought to the attention of any person that an open abandoned well or hole, as defined in subsection (a) of this Code section, exists on public or private property, such person shall immediately inform the governing authority of the county in which the hazard exists. The governing authority shall inform the owner or possessor of the land upon which the hazard exists. The governing authority of any such county is authorized to use county work crews, private contractors, or any inmate labor within the county to abate the hazard either by covering, filling, or otherwise. When the hazard exists on private property, the governing authority shall first obtain the permission of the owner or possessor of the property before proceeding with any action in regard to abating the hazard existing on the private property. Upon approval by the owner or possessor of the private property, the governing authority may use county work crews, private contractors, or inmate labor; but in no case shall any work other than making the hazard safe be done on private property. (c) If the abandoned well or hole is located on private property and the owner or possessor of the property cannot be located or is not known, the

governing authority of the county may abate the hazard without the prior approval of the owner or possessor. (d) The governing authority of the county is authorized to recover the reasonable costs of filling or covering the abandoned well or hole located on private property from the owner or possessor of said property. (e) The governing authority of the county is authorized to expend county funds to accomplish the purpose of this Code section.

History

(Ga. L. 1965, p. 446, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1986, p. 922, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 44; Ga. L. 1988, p. 13, § 44; Ga. L. 1992, p. 6, § 44.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Abatement of nuisances generally, Ch. 2, T. 41. Rules and regulations relating to hiring out of inmates, see § 42-5-60.

Law reviews. - For annual survey of local government law, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 289 (1986).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS - Because an abandoned well on the landowners’ property, which had been covered over, did not become an ‘‘open’’ abandoned well or hole until after an injured person’s leg fell through into the hole, the landowners did not violate O.C.G.A. § 44-1-14. Sisson v. Elliott, 278 Ga. App. 156, 628 S.E.2d 232 (2006).

Jury instruction on duty to fill wells properly denied. - Trial court properly refused defendant’s request for a jury charge on the duty to fill in abandoned wells since the requested charge was not accurate and was not adjusted to the evidence. McCoy v. State, 262 Ga. 699, 425 S.E.2d 646 (1993). Covered hole not ‘‘open’’ abandoned well.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Taxation for purpose of abating pollution of wells. - County is authorized to collect and levy taxes for the purpose of abating the disposal of pollutants into wells by closing the wells. 1983 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U83-42.

County work crews composed of inmates can be utilized to enter upon private property to close abandoned wells or holes. 1983 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U83-42.

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S., Negligence, § 400 et seq. 66 C.J.S., Nuisances, § 121 et seq. ALR. - Liability of landowner for injury to or death of child caused by cave-in or landslide, 28 ALR2d 195. Liability of landowner for injury or death of adult falling down unhoused well, cistern, mine shaft, or the like, 46 ALR2d 1069. Duty and liability as to plugging oil or gas well abandoned or taken out of production, 50 ALR3d 240.

Am. Jur. 2d. - 57 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal, County School, and State Tort Liability, §§ 120, 124, 136, 137. 58 Am. Jur. 2d, Nuisances, §§ 8 et seq., 70 et seq., 79, 80, 82, 102, 106, 107, 113, 117 et seq., 156, 167 et seq., 226, 246 et seq., 440. 62 Am. Jur. 2d, Premises Liability, § 49 et seq. 62A Am. Jur. 2d, Premises Liability, § 617. 78 Am. Jur. 2d, Waters, §§ 206, 239, 395. C.J.S. - 16A C.J.S., Constitutional Law, §§ 616, 617. 18 C.J.S., Convicts, §§ 2, 5, 16 et seq., 23. 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 169. 65A

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2006–2019 · leading case: Sisson v. Elliott, 628 S.E.2d 232 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
Sisson v. Elliott, 628 S.E.2d 232 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “Elliott charges the Sissons with violating OCGA § 44-1-14 by not reporting the existence of the abandoned well to the governing *158 authority of the county; with violating OCGA§ 51-3-1 by not inspecting the property, discovering the location of the well, and abating the hazard…”
Marie Handberry, as Surviving Spouse of William Donald Handberry, Sr. v. Manning Forestry Servs., LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 31× “Marie’s claims are premised on alleged violations of OCGA § 44-1-14, which, in relevant part, requires “any person” to report “an open abandoned well or hole” located on “public or private property” to “the governing authority of the county in which the hazard exists.”
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.