1. "In our present mode of living in Georgia, in a society in which the transmission of electricity is an absolute necessity for our economic, social, and cultural well-being, we hold that the mere maintenance, without more, of high tension lines at the minimum height shown by the evidence in this case does not create any risks within the scope of the duty owed as hereinbefore defined. In short, the mere maintenance, without more, of high tension wires at a minimum height of twenty-four feet four inches above a traveled roadway is not actionable negligence." Carden v. Ga. Power Co., 231 Ga. 456 (202 SE2d 55)
; Ga. Power Co. v. Williams, 132 Ga. App. 874 (209 SE2d 648)
2. "The duty to keep premises safe for invitees applies to defects or conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, and the like, in that they are not known to the invitee and would not be observed by him in the exercise of ordinary care." Day v. Trion Co., 56 Ga. App. 1 (192 SE 88).
3. A finding for the defendant is demanded in an action by an invitee against the owner of realty where it is undisputed that both the plaintiff and the defendant had knowledge of the alleged defect which caused the injury, and that by the exercise of ordinary care the plaintiff could have avoided the injury. McGeeney v. Robertson, 102 Ga. App. 318 (116 SE2d 252)
4. "Ordinarily, foreseeability is a question of fact for the jury. Hicks v. M.H.A., 107 Ga. App. 290
, 293 (129 SE2d 817
). Nevertheless, where the evidence on the issue of negligence 'is palpably clear, plain and indisputable,' the court will resolve the matter without the intervention of a jury. Bolden v. Barnes, 117 Ga. App. 862 (162 SE2d 307)
; Benefield v. McDonough Const. Co., 106 Ga. App. 194 (126 SE2d 704)
. See e. g. Williams v. Gibbs, 123 Ga. App. 677 (182 SE2d 164)
; Daneker v. Megrue, 114 Ga. App. 312 (151 SE2d 157)
; Moses v. Chapman, 113 Ga. App. 845 (149 SE2d 850)
." Ga. Power Co. v. Williams, 132 Ga. App. 874
Appellant's husband was delivering a load of bulk feed to the farm of Mr. Saffold for his employer, Spartanburg Grain and Feed Company. He had been delivering feed to this farm approximately every week for the preceeding twelve months. The truck in which this feed was delivered was equipped with a feed body and a boom twenty-four feet long mounted on the back of the truck which was used to unload the feed into a feed bin located adjacent to Saffold's barn. This boom came in contact with an electric wire and plaintiff's husband was killed.
The distance from the base of the feed bin and the wires involved in the incident is 37 feet. On the day of the accident, the truck was parked in an unusual manner, in a position not customarily used by plaintiffs decedent. In this position, the boom was directly underneath the wires. The electric wires pass across the property at an angle to the barn, and there are at least two positions in which the truck could have been parked for unloading so as to increase the distance between the base of the feed bin and the electrical wires. These two positions were the positions normally used by plaintiffs decedent in unloading his feed truck.
The wires had been placed on the property by the power company and neither Saffold nor his agents or employees had done any installation, maintenance, alteration or repair on the wires.
Both Central Georgia Electric Membership Corporation and Saffold moved for summary judgments, which were granted and plaintiff appeals.
PANNELL, Presiding Judge.
The judge's order in the case against S. J. Saffold, Sr., reads in part as follows: "It seems clear that an essential element of actionable negligence is foresee ability (that injury would have resulted) which would have required Saffold as the landowner to warn the deceased of likely injury or a fatality under the existing situations in this case. Hulsey v. Hightower, 44 Ga. App. 455 (161 SE 664)
. The determination is to be made according to the circumstances that existed at the time of the injury. Pfeifer v. Yellow Cab Co. of Atlanta, 88 Ga. App. 221 (76 SE2d 225)
; Daneker v. Megrue, 114 Ga. App. 312 (151 SE2d 157)
. And there would have to be something to show that a warning was needed because unknown to Plaintiff's husband.
" 'The duty to keep premises safe for invitees applies to defects or conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, and the like, in that they are not known to the invitee and would not be observed by him in the exercise of ordinary care.' (Emphasis supplied.) Day v. Trion Company, 456 Ga. App. 1, supra.
A finding in favor of a defendant or the sustaining of a Motion for Summary Judgment by defendant are both proper, demanded and required where both the Plaintiff and Defendant, Saffold, had knowledge of the alleged defect which caused the injury (and which could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care by the plaintiffs husband himself and where no material issue of fact remained for determination because of the deceased's familiarity with the premises. McGeeney v. Robertson, 102 Ga. App. 318
and Mattison v. Jackson-Atlantic, 129 Ga. App. 279
. Defendant Saffold had no superior knowledge of any defect of which he should have warned, or was under the duty to warn, the deceased as a part of owner Saffold's ordinary diligence."
With this we agree.
Judgment affirmed in each case. Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur.