A personal injury case arising from a workplace accident at Georgia Power’s Old National Substation centers on who was responsible for safety decisions on a multi-contractor project. Importantly, the question involves more than tort liability.
The Project and Injury
Plaintiff, an employee of an electrical contractor retained by Southern Company, the parent company of Georgia Power, was injured while working on a new section of the substation. While operating a lift near a newly constructed electrical bay, Plaintiff positioned too close to a live component and suffered serious injuries.
The project involved multiple parties. Defendants included an engineering firm serving as program manager for Georgia Power and an individual project manager. The electrical contractor that employed Plaintiff was responsible for performing the work, including developing outage plans.
Legal Arguments at the Trial Court
Plaintiff contends that Defendants negligently failed to detect or prevent the unsafe configuration that allowed the live electrical part to remain within the work area. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants owed a duty to review the electrical contractor’s outage plans for safety and to intervene in the clearance review process.
Defendants contend they owed no legal duty to Plaintiff, exercised no control over the electrical contractor or the jobsite, and played no role in selecting the energized clearance points. Defendants point to their agreement with Southern Company, which describes their role as administrative and coordination-focused rather than operational.
Trial Court Rulings
In reviewing the record, the trial court focused on how responsibilities were divided by contract among the parties. It noted that Plaintiff was employed by the electrical contractor, not by Defendants and that the electrical contractor created the outage plan, selected the clearance points, and directed Plaintiff’s work. The Court also considered project documents cited by Plaintiff — such as planning materials and — but found that they did not demonstrate that Defendants took on a hands-on role in safety decisions. Also, the trial court noted that the component that caused the injury was not created or controlled by Defendants. Instead, it was tied to the decisions of the electrical contractor.
The trial Court also considered Plaintiff’s experience. As a worker familiar with substation environments, Plaintiff was aware of the risks associated with energized equipment. The Court noted that both Plaintiff and his employer had the ability to identify and address such hazards in the field.
Plaintiff additionally argued that he should benefit from the agreement between Southern Company and Defendants. The Court, however, found no indication that the agreement was intended to extend protections to individual workers employed by other contractors.
Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case. Plaintiff filed an appeal.
Arguments on Appeal
On appeal, during oral argument, the appellate panel focused on how Defendants’ role should be interpreted in the context of a multi-contractor project.[1]
One judge questioned whether contractual language limiting Defendants’ responsibilities should affect Plaintiff, who was not a party to that agreement. Plaintiff argued that such provisions should not shield Defendants from responsibility to third parties.
Another judge explored whether the shared nature of the project itself could create broader responsibilities, suggesting that the Court might look beyond the contract to the fact that multiple contractors were working toward a common goal. Plaintiff agreed in part but emphasized that responsibility should still be tied to the specific work performed.
Plaintiff also argued that Defendants were involved in preparing a list of switches to be turned off and that errors in that process contributed to the incident. Defendants responded that any such materials were preliminary and did not govern how the work was ultimately carried out.
The panel also examined the role of the project’s “scoping document.” Defendants described it as a high-level planning document that provided minimal detail and was created before certain contractors, including Plaintiff’s employer, were even involved. They argued that it did not direct field operations or safety decisions.
Judges questioned whether other contractors relied on these materials in performing their work. Defendants maintained that there was no evidence of such reliance and emphasized that each contractor was responsible for its own work and safety planning.
The appeal remains pending.
[1] Kelcey Caulder, Ga. Appeals Court Weighs Safety Duty in Lineman’s Burn Suit, Law360 (April 16, 2026).
