Ronald Miller v. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
339 Ga. App. 638
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2006–07 Skanska and subcontractor I&S installed and labeled a junction box ("Junction Box") and a breaker panel ("Panel") in a TBS/Turner Properties building; years later Gallagher employees (including Miller and journeyman Nipper) worked on that fourth-floor room.
- Miller claimed to have turned off Circuit 15 at the Panel, locked the panel/room, and returned; Nipper later removed a wire nut in the Junction Box and was shocked, told Miller the circuit was not off, and descended the ladder.
- Miller climbed the ladder to investigate despite Nipper’s warning; within seconds Miller was electrocuted, fell, and suffered catastrophic injuries that left him unable to testify about his actions on the ladder.
- Turner electricians later tested the box and determined Circuit 13 — mislabeled as a “Spare” on the Panel schedule — actually energized the Junction Box; they amended the panel labeling accordingly. OSHA later cited Gallagher for lockout/tagout violations.
- Appellants (Miller) sued TBS, Turner Properties, Skanska, and I&S for negligence; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding Miller’s decision to climb the ladder and work despite a warning was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding triable issues exist on proximate cause and that defendants failed to carry their burden to establish contributory negligence or assumption of risk as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate cause — did defendants’ alleged mislabeling cause Miller’s injury? | Mislabeling of Panel/Junction Box caused Miller to believe he had deenergized the correct circuit; thus defendants’ negligence proximately caused the injury. | Even if mislabeled, Miller knew a shock occurred and nonetheless approached the live box, so his own conduct was sole proximate cause. | Reversed trial court: evidence of mislabeling plus expert testimony that investigation was reasonable creates a jury issue on proximate cause. |
| Contributory negligence / assumption of risk — do these bar recovery? | Miller’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances; absence of evidence about what Miller did on the ladder prevents defendants from proving these affirmative defenses. | Miller disregarded a known danger (coworker shocked) and failed to test or lockout/tag, so his negligence/assumption of risk bars recovery. | Defendants bear the burden on affirmative defenses at summary judgment; their speculation about Miller’s conduct and OSHA violations is insufficient to win on summary judgment. |
| Effect of OSHA violations (lockout/tagout, testing) | OSHA noncompliance does not automatically prove causation; absence of evidence linking Miller’s conduct to the injury is fatal to defendants’ defense burden. | Miller (and Gallagher) violated OSHA rules; those violations confirm contributory negligence and preclude recovery. | Court: OSHA evidence alone (or absence of locks) is insufficient to establish causation or defenses at summary judgment; factual issues remain. |
| Liability of Skanska and I&S for mislabeling | Skanska/I&S installed/initially labeled the Panel/Junction Box and therefore may be responsible for mislabeling that caused the injury. | No evidence they mislabelled the circuits; summary judgment should be affirmed as to them. | Majority declines to affirm on that ground and remands for trial court to address on remand; leaves issue unsettled on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Latson v. Boaz, 278 Ga. 113 (summary judgment standard; construe evidence for nonmovant)
- Toyo Tire N. Am. Mfg., Inc. v. Davis, 299 Ga. 155 (proximate-cause requires legally attributable causal connection)
- Bradley Ctr., Inc. v. Wessner, 250 Ga. 199 (proximate cause principles)
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (intervening cause and foreseeability in proximate cause analysis)
- Ontario Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 275 Ga. 683 (when intervening acts break causal chain)
- Leonardson v. Ga. Power Co., 210 Ga. App. 574 (worker’s knowledge of obvious electrical danger can bar recovery; foreseeability of plaintiff’s conduct)
- Beamon v. Ga. Power Co., 199 Ga. App. 309 (safety-procedure violations and plaintiff’s admission of not exercising care)
- Lau’s Corp., Inc. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (defendant entitled to summary judgment if plaintiff lacks evidence on an essential element)