O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 46-3-40 (2019)

Criminal penalty; strict liability for injury or damage; indemnification; liability for cost of delay

✓ 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) Any person responsible for the work who violates any of the provisions of this part shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon

T.46, C.3, A.1, P.3

conviction thereof, shall be liable for a fine of $1,000.00 for a first offense and $3,000.00 for a second or subsequent offense. (b) Any person responsible for the work who violates the requirements of Code Section 46-3-33 and whose subsequent activities within the vicinity of high-voltage lines result in damage to utility facilities or result in injury or damage to person or property shall be strictly liable for said injury or damage. Any such person shall also indemnify the owner or operator of such high-voltage lines against all claims, if any, for personal injury, including death, property damage, or service interruptions, including costs incurred in defending any such claims resulting from work in violation of Code Section 46-3-33. (c) In the event the owner or operator of the high-voltage line fails to effect the safeguards required by Code Section 46-3-33 within a reasonable time after notice is given and appropriate arrangements are made pursuant to Code Section 46-3-34, such owner or operator shall be liable for the reasonable costs incurred by any such delay.

History

(Ga. L. 1960, p. 181, § 7; Code 1981, § 46-3-39; Code 1981, § 46-3-40, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1992, p. 2141, § 1.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Workers’ compensation exclusive remedy provisions. - The workers’ compensation exclusive remedy provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a) bar the express indemnity provisions of the High-voltage Safety Act, O.C.G.A. § 46-3-40(b). Georgia Power Co. v. Franco Remodeling Co., 233 Ga. App. 640, 505 S.E.2d 488 (1998). The indemnity provision of the High-voltage Safety Act (O.C.G.A. § 46-3-30 et seq.) can be enforced without offending the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Georgia Power Co. v. Franco Remodeling Co., 240 Ga. App. 771, 525 S.E.2d 152 (1999), vacating Georgia Power Co. v. Franco Remodeling Co., 233 Ga. App. 640, 505 S.E.2d 488 (1998). Indemnity actions pursuant to HVSA. - The indemnity provision of the High Voltage safety Act (HVSA) may be enforced without offending the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act by according indemnity actions pursuant to the HVSA

the same dignity case law has given contractual indemnity provisions executed by private parties. The HVSA authorizes a power line owner or operator to obtain indemnification from an employer on account of the employer’s failure to abide by the safety provisions in the HVSA. Flint Elec. Membership Corp. v. Ed Smith Constr. Co., 270 Ga. 464, 511 S.E.2d 160 (1999). Where a power line owner established that a subcontractor was a ‘‘person responsible for the work’’ that failed to give notice to the owner or a utilities protection center that work was being performed within 10 feet of the high-voltage line, the subcontractor was liable to the owner on its claim for defense costs. Georgia Power Co. v. Franco Remodeling Co., 240 Ga. App. 771, 525 S.E.2d 152 (1999). Cited in Savannah Elec. & Power Co. v. Holton, 127 Ga. App. 447, 193 S.E.2d 866 (1972).

Part 3 Sale of Electricity by Facility Generating Electricity, Steam, or Other Forms of Energy for Its Own Consumption

T.46, C.3, A.1, P.3

Law reviews. - For article surveying recent legislative and judicial developments in

zoning, planning and environmental law, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 89 (1979).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: City of Dalton v. Gene Rogers Constr. Co., 479 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Dalton v. Gene Rogers Constr. Co., 479 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 12× “) OCGA § 46-3-40 (b). Rogers Construction moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Dalton’s third-party action on the ground that it was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which states that “[t]he rights and the remedies granted to…”
Flint Elec. Membership Corp. v. Ed Smith Constr. Co., 511 S.E.2d 160 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 8× “Flint sought indemnification from the construction company pursuant to OCGA § 46-3-40 (b) of the High-voltage Safety Act (HVSA), OCGA § 46-3-30 et seq.”
Glass Sys., Inc. v. Georgia Power Co., 703 S.E.2d 605 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 16× “Appellee then filed an indemnity action, as provided for by OCGA § 46-3-40 (b), 3 against appellant to recover its costs, including legal fees, in defending itself against appellant’s employees.”
Satilla Cmty. Serv. Bd. v. Satilla Health Servs., Inc., 555 S.E.2d 188 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 46-3-40 (b); Flint Elec. Membership Corp.”
Georgia Power Co. v. Franco Remodeling Co., 505 S.E.2d 488 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 28× “OCGA § 46-3-40. By not making an exception in the workers' compensation statute for the High-voltage Safety Act, the legislature has expressed its will that the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation statute prevail.”
Georgia Power Co. v. Franco Remodeling Co., 525 S.E.2d 152 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “Nevertheless, Georgia Power also asserted a claim against Franco under OCGA § 46-3-40 (b) for defense costs and that claim is still viable.”
Flint Elec. Membership Corp. v. Ed Smith Constr. Co., 495 S.E.2d 136 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Held: OCGA § 46-3-40 (b) of the High-voltage Safety Act pertinently provides: “Any person responsible for the work who violates the requirements of Code Section 46-3-33 [required conditions for commencing work within ten feet of high-voltage line] and whose subsequent activities…”
John a. Pferrman v. Bps of Tifton, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 46-3-40 (a) - (b). Here, it is undisputed that no one provided notice to the utilities protection center prior to attempting to remove the old billboard sign and install a new one.”
— 46-3-40(b) — 2 cases
City of Dalton v. Gene Rogers Constr. Co., 479 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). “) OCGA § 46-3-40 (b). Rogers Construction moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Dalton’s third-party action on the ground that it was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which states that “[t]he rights and the remedies granted to…”
Georgia Power Co. v. Franco Remodeling Co., 505 S.E.2d 488 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). “OCGA § 46-3-40. By not making an exception in the workers' compensation statute for the High-voltage Safety Act, the legislature has expressed its will that the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation statute prevail.”
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.