#COLQUITT EMC TRIAL#
#COLQUITT EMC FREE#

#COLQUITT EMC TRIAL#

Appellant contends the trial court's grant of summary judgment to appellee on this ground was erroneous because, given that appellee was negligent in maintaining the power lines, a genuine issue of material fact exists whether appellee should have foreseen and taken action to guard against actions such as appellant's, even if those actions were themselves negligent. 'The causal connection between an original act of negligence and injury to another is not broken by intervening act if the nature of such intervening act was such that it could reasonably have been anticipated or foreseen by the original wrongdoer.' (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Beamon v. The motion was made on the ground that despite any such negligence appellee could not be held liable because appellant's injuries were not proximately caused by appellee's acts or omissions but by appellant's own negligent conduct in climbing a tree with a metal pole when the tree was in close proximity to power lines. Although in their briefs the parties refer to industry standards regarding minimum clearance requirements for power lines near trees, the record reveals that no evidence was adduced by either appellant or appellee regarding those standards and no conclusion could have been drawn regarding any breach by appellee of a duty to abide by them.ДЄppellee's motion for summary judgment pretermitted the question of whether appellee was negligent and assumed, arguendo, the truth of appellant's allegations in that regard. Rickey Gaston, former Manager of Engineering and Operations for appellee, averred that the power line was 11 feet 7 inches from the *70 tree trunk and 7 feet 4 inches from the closest tree limb. Appellant testified that he had been knocking pecans out of trees all his life and considered himself experienced at it, and that he was familiar with his father's property, having lived there for several years.

#COLQUITT EMC FREE#

ungrounded electrical conductors free from interference from the tree' and 'maintain the line in such manner as to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to others.' Appellant and his wife, who was present at the time of the incident, testified at deposition that appellant had climbed a pecan tree carrying a long aluminum pole he intended to use to knock down nuts, and that he slipped on a branch, causing the pole to hit the power line. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the EMC and Buckner appeals.ДЄppellant alleged in his complaint that appellee was negligent in failing to 'trim or remove the tree in such manner as to keep the. Austin, for appellee.Дouglas Buckner brought suit against the Colquitt Electric Membership Corporation to recover damages for injuries from an electric shock he received when an aluminum pole he was using to harvest pecans on property owned by his father struck a high voltage transmission line owned by the EMC. Reconsideration Denied October 30, 1992.Дonaldson & Bell, George P. 69 (1992) 424 S.E.2d 299 BUCKNERД¬OLQUITT ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION.

Colquitt emc