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).

Purpose of O.C.G.A. § 46-3-40(b), allowing a power company to pursue an indemnity action against an employer whose workers were injured by contact with high voltage power lines because the workers failed to notify the power company of the work, was to prevent injury, a legitimate legislative purpose, and the purpose was served because the threat of an indemnity action would motivate employers to follow the notice requirement and thereby prevent accidents. Therefore, the statute did not violate substantive due process. Glass Sys. v. Ga. Power Co., 288 Ga. 85, 703 S.E.2d 605 (2010).

Cited in Savannah Elec. & Power Co. v. Holton, 127 Ga. App. 447, 193 S.E.2d 866 (1972).

Law reviews.

- For article surveying recent legislative and judicial developments in zoning, planning and environmental law, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 89 (1979).