As the appellant’s husband was removing an aluminum ladder from the side of an apartment building on which he was performing maintenance work, he was electrocuted by a discharge of current from high-voltage power lines owned by the appellee, Geоrgia Power Company. Appellant sued for wrongful death, contending that Georgia Power had installed and maintained the lines in a negligent manner and that this alleged negligenсe was the proximate cause of her husband’s death. This appeal is from a grant of summary judgment to the power company. The case remains pending below against two other defendants, whose liability is predicated on their alleged negligenсe in maintaining and managing the apartments.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, Georgiа Power submitted an affidavit showing that the lines were strung at a horizontal distance of 8'2"from thе side of the building. It was further shown that the “phase-to-ground” voltage of the circuit was 11.4 kilovоlts and that the minimum clearance required for such a line by the National Electric Sаfety Code (NESC), which sets forth the industry standard for clearances between buildings and electrical conductors, was eight feet.
In response to the motion for summary judgment, the аppellant submitted the affidavit of a land surveyor who maintained that at some time in thе past the line had been located no more than 7.26 feet from the side of the building; however, no evidence was presented to show that the lines were moved subsequent to decedent’s death. The appellant also presented the affidavit оf a licensed professional engineer to the effect that the building had a 1'8" eave, or gutter overhand, and that this constituted part of “the building and its attachments” within the meаning of the NESC. Taking this overhang into account, and assuming the correctness of the power company’s own measurements, he concluded that the actual clearance was only 6'6". Held:
1. One of the grounds on which the trial court granted summary judgment was the faсt that no one had provided the power company with notice, as required by Cоde Ann. § 34B-201 et seq. (now OCGA § 46-3-30 et seq.), that tools or equipment were going to be used within 8' of its lines. Due tо an apparent conflict in the authorities, we certified to the Supreme Court the question of whether the failure to provide such notice would insulate the power company from liability as a matter of law. The Court responded in the negative, holding as follows: “One whose injury is caused by negligent installation or maintenance of high-vоltage lines, even where such injury occurs
*499
while engaged in acts enumerated in OCGA § 46-3-32 (Code Ann. § 34B-203) within eight feet of the lines, is not barred by failure to give notice.”
Malvarez v. Ga. Power Co.,
2. The duty owed by the pоwer company was to maintain the lines “in such a manner and at such ¿ location as not to injure persons who might be reasonably expected to come in cоntact with such lines.”
Carden v. Ga. Power Co.,
Judgment reversed.