Benson v. Action Electric Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Benson v. Action Electric Co.

206 S.E.2d 647, 131 Ga. App. 623, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1497

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 19, 1974·No. 49162·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinions

Eberhardt, Presiding Judge.

It was not error to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment since the pleadings, depositions, etc., summarized below, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under fundamental principles of negligence law. Huckabee v. Grace, 48 Ga. App. 621, 627 (2) (173 SE 744); Mayor &c. of Macon v. Dykes, 103 Ga. 847 (31 SE 843); Augusta Amusements, Inc. v. Powell, 93 Ga. App. 752, 754 (92 SE2d 720); Herring v. Hauck, 118 Ga. App. 623 (165 SE2d 198); Herschel McDaniel Funeral Home v. Hines, 124 Ga. App. 47, 50 (183 SE2d 7); Shockley v. Zayre of Atlanta, 118 Ga. App. 672 (165 SE2d 179); Whitaker v. Jones, McDougald, Smith, Pew Co., 69 Ga. App. 711 (1, 2) (26 SE2d 545); Deco Leasing Corp. v. Harvey, 114 Ga. App. 217 (150 SE2d 699); Daneker v. Megrue, 114 Ga. App. 312 (151 SE2d 157).

The evidence submitted here demanded a finding that even if there had been negligence on the part of the defendant in leaving the electric conduit "dangling” from the ceiling (the line was not energized), the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury was his own negligence in moving the conduit to the side of the scaffolding where it could and did catch on the plyboard platform when the scaffolding was moved at his direction. No actionable negligence on the part of the defendant appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., Pannell, P. J., Deen, Quillian, Clark and Stolz, JJ, concur. Evans, J., dissents. Webb, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Eberhardt, Presiding Judge.

It was not error to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment since the pleadings, depositions, etc., summarized below, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under fundamental principles of negligence law. Huckabee v. Grace, 48 Ga. App. 621, 627 (2) (173 SE 744); Mayor &c. of Macon v. Dykes, 103 Ga. 847 (31 SE 843); Augusta Amusements, Inc. v. Powell, 93 Ga. App. 752, 754 (92 SE2d 720); Herring v. Hauck, 118 Ga. App. 623 (165 SE2d 198); Herschel McDaniel Funeral Home v. Hines, 124 Ga. App. 47, 50 (183 SE2d 7); Shockley v. Zayre of Atlanta, 118 Ga. App. 672 (165 SE2d 179); Whitaker v. Jones, McDougald, Smith, Pew Co., 69 Ga. App. 711 (1, 2) (26 SE2d 545); Deco Leasing Corp. v. Harvey, 114 Ga. App. 217 (150 SE2d 699); Daneker v. Megrue, 114 Ga. App. 312 (151 SE2d 157).

The evidence submitted here demanded a finding that even if there had been negligence on the part of the defendant in leaving the electric conduit "dangling” from the ceiling (the line was not energized), the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury was his own negligence in moving the conduit to the side of the scaffolding where it could and did catch on the plyboard platform when the scaffolding was moved at his direction. No actionable negligence on the part of the defendant appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., Pannell, P. J., Deen, Quillian, Clark and Stolz, JJ, concur. Evans, J., dissents. Webb, J., not participating.

Benson v. Action Electric Co., 206 S.E.2d 647, 131 Ga. App. 623, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1497 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

206 S.E.2d 647 (Benson v. Action Electric Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related