Page 16 - sept-oct 2017_Neat

provided an adequate warning and the plaintiff’s injury are negligence claim.
of the danger due to the leak too remote for the law to allow As part of the proximate
in the gas system. recovery.” In other words, cause analysis, the Court of
Plaintiffs fi led an appeal, conduct occurring after the Appeals discussed another
arguing that the trial court defendant’s actions can Georgia case that the trial
erred in granting summary break the causal connection court relied on for guidance
judgment, when it determined required for a successful when it granted AGL’s
plaintiffs’ injuries were not negligence claim. Basically, summary judgment motion. In
proximately caused by AGL the legal concept of proximate that Georgia case, a tenant
and that the warning provided cause is tied to the scope of a in a mobile home notifi ed
by AGL was adequate as a defendant’s responsibility in a her “electric membership
matter of law, i.e. without a negligence case. In general, corporation (EMC)” servicing
jury’s determination of the a company cannot be held the home that they were
alleged fact issues. to unlimited liability for any receiving electrical shocks if
The Appeal. and all damages that could they touched two pieces of
The Georgia Court possibly be tied to, or somehow metal at the same time. An
of Appeals addressed the connected to its conduct. EMC representative tested
proximate cause issue by fi rst Instead, under the law a inside the home and found
noting that a plaintiff can defendant is responsible only potentially life-threatening
recover on a negligence claim for damages the defendant voltage levels but also
only if the defendant’s conduct could reasonably foresee “discovered that the voltage
was the proximate cause of stemming from its actions. If reading registered zero when
the injuries. “This requirement the damages are outside the he shut off one particular
refl ects a policy decision that scope of foreseeable risks, circuit breaker.” He shut off
in certain circumstances—i.e., the plaintiff cannot meet the the circuit breaker and told
where there is an intervening burden of proof on causation the tenants that the situation
act—the defendant’s conduct and cannot prevail on a was very dangerous, that
his friend was killed by that
same level of voltage, and
to not turn the circuit breaker
back on until it had been
checked and repaired. The
%REWDLOV WR %XONSODQWV tenant’s landlord changed
the receptacles on the circuit
but within a day or two, the
tenant was receiving shocks
again. The tenant testifi ed that
New Bobtails Betts Vapor Proof Lights: New Installations she kept the circuit on “per
Refurbished Bobtails complete stock of lights, lens Maintenance & Repairs
Hydrostatic Testing & accessories All Work Performed to NFPA 58
Annual VK Inspections Chelsea PTO & Equipment: Code Upgrades her landlord’s assurances”
Annual DOT Inspections power take offs, drive shafts Storage Plant Acquisition & Removal
Base Engineering Shutdown & accessories that there was not a problem.
Tragically two months later, the
FREE ESTIMATES tenant’s six-year old child was

,QGXVWU\ 'ULYH -DVRQ *DPEOH 2ZQHU electrocuted. The incident led
%RD] $/
(PDLO OSWUXFNV #DRO FRP )D[ to a lawsuit and a decision by

16 Alabama Propane Gas Association | September/October 2017