McGarity v. Hart Electric Membership Corp.
307 Ga. App. 739
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- McGarity (injured by a live electrical wire) visited private property with an easement held/maintained by HEMC, which advertised the property for sale.
- HEMC moved for summary judgment, arguing McGarity was a licensee or trespasser, lacked notice of the defect, and that its eight-to-ten-year inspection policy was reasonable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding McGarity was at best a licensee and that HEMC did not breach duty; McGarity appeals.
- Evidence showed the wire protruded from ground near a road in a subdivision, with overgrown vegetation and no visible junction box or concrete pad; boxes possibly removed or stolen, with past wire theft.
- HEMC admitted installing the wire in 2000 and claimed inspections occurred about every ten years (NESC-based rationale); expert testimony on inspection frequency was disputed.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals reverses, finding issues of fact on invitee vs licensee, duty of care, and knowledge/inspection adequacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invitee vs. licensee status | McGarity could be invitee due to mutual benefit from sale ads | HEMC contends McGarity was licensee or trespasser | Judgment reversed; jury to determine invitee vs licensee and assign liability accordingly. |
| Reasonableness of HEMC's inspections | Inspections too infrequent given risk and conditions | HEMC followed NESC guidance; frequency reasonable | Question of fact; jury must decide reasonableness of inspection frequency. |
| Knowledge and constructive knowledge of the hazard | HEMC had opportunity to discover and remedy exposed wire | HEMC contends no actual knowledge; liability limited | Question of fact on constructive knowledge and plaintiff's own safety precautions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Latson v. Boaz, 278 Ga. 113 (2004) (establishes general premises liability standards and duty of care)
- Matlack v. Cobb Elec. Membership Corp., 289 Ga.App. 632 (2008) (premises liability and invitee/licensee analysis against utility occupier)
- Jarrell v. JDC & Assocs., 296 Ga.App. 523 (2009) (licensee vs invitee considerations in property visits)
- Mut. Life Ins. Co., etc. v. Churchwell, 221 Ga. App. 312 (1996) (mutual benefit as test for invitee status)
- Frankel v. Antman, 157 Ga.App. 26 (1981) (invitee status and premises liability standards)
- J.H. Harvey Co. v. Reddick, 240 Ga.App. 466 (1999) (precedent on jury questions regarding inspections and duties)