Page 17 - sept-oct 2017_Neat
P. 17
the trial court to grant summary the gas could be turned on.” outside Georgia, summary
judgment for EMC which was The plaintiffs asserted judgment motions or appeals
appealed. The Georgia Court multiple counter arguments based on similar facts may
of Appeals determined that including going to great not have the same result as
EMC’s conduct was not the lengths to distinguish the case this case, i.e. those courts may
proximate cause of the child’s involving the mobile home’s decide that a jury would need
death. The Court “concluded electrical system arguing to determine the outcome of a
that the acts and statements that the landlord substantially negligence case. Regardless,
of third parties that resulted in altered the system after the the case underscores the
the breaker being turned on EMC technician was there complexity of causation issues
constituted an intervening act and before the child was in litigation; potential issues
that was not foreseeable by electrocuted but that Thomas’ related to unqualifi ed people
the EMC, particularly in light of handyman did not change working on gas systems; and
the detailed warning that the the condition left by AGL to the importance of following
technician had provided the the same extent. The Court of procedures and documenting
plaintiff.” Appeals stated that “this is a work completed at each and
The Court pointed out distinction without a difference. every customer location. Have
that similarly in this case, the In both cases, the premises a safe and great summer!
jury could come to only one were left in a condition that The door to safety swings
conclusion-that AGL’s conduct did not pose an immediate on the hinges of common
did not proximately cause the danger—the EMC technician sense. ~Author unknown ■
plaintiffs’ injuries. The Court turned off the circuit breaker, [Kathryn A. (“Katy”) Regier is an
noted that “even assuming the and the AGL representative attorney with the Sandberg, Phoenix &
von Gontard, P.C. law fi rm in its Kansas
AGL representative’s failure turned off the gas (after having City, MO offi ce. She can be contacted
to reinstall a lock on the gas turned it on as requested).” at: kregier@sandbergphoenix.com or
(816) 425-9683.]
meter was a “but-for” cause of The Court also pointed out that
the explosion, the subsequent “in each case, a third party
actions of Thomas, with the took an action—turning on
help of his handyman, “to the circuit breaker, or turning
turn on the gas without fi xing on the gas—that created a
the leak was a new cause dangerous condition.”
... suffi cient to stand as the ***
cause of” the explosion.” The In the case reviewed
Court also determined that above, the Georgia Court of
“a jury could not conclude Appeals’ decision to affi rm
that AGL reasonably could the trial court’s granting of
have foreseen that Thomas summary judgment for the
would have taken that action gas company was grounded
in derogation of the clear in strong Georgia case law
written warning left by the AGL on the proximate cause
representative specifying that issue coupled with certain
Thomas’ natural gas system uncontroverted facts, like the
had a dangerous leak that clear content of the warning
needed to be corrected before card. However, in jurisdictions
17
