Appellant Glass Systems, Inc. was a subcontractor on a condominium project when two of its workers were injured by a high voltage power line operated by appellee Georgia Power Company. Neither appellant nor the two injured workers notified appellee that they would be working near the power lines before work commenced as required by OCGA § 46-3-331 of the Georgia High Voltage Safety Act HVSA.2 The two workers sued appellee for claims related to their injuries, but did not prevail. See Dalton v. 933 Peachtree, L.P. , 291 Ga. App. 123 661 SE2d 156 2008. Appellee then filed an indemnity action, as provided for by OCGA § 46-3-40 b,3 against appellant to recover its costs, including legal fees, in defending itself against appellant’s employees. In response to appellee’s motion for partial summary judgment, appellant alleged that OCGA § 46-3-40 b was unconstitutional. The trial court held the statute constitutional and granted appellee’s partial motion for summary judgment. For reasons set forth below, we affirm. The purpose of the HVSA is set forth in OCGA § 46-3-31which states as follows: The purpose of this part is to prevent injury to persons and property and interruptions of utility service resulting from accidental or inadvertent contact with high-voltage electric lines by providing that no work shall be done in the vicinity of such lines unless and until the owner or operator thereof has been notified of such work and has taken one of the safety measures prescribed in this part. In Dalton v. 933 Peachtree, L.P. , supra, 291 Ga. App. at 129, the Court of Appeals determined that because appellant and its agents failed to provide appellee or the Utilities Protection Service with notice of the work appellant’s employees would be performing near appellee’s power lines, appellee was not liable for the injuries sustained by appellant’s employees. See also Jackson EMC v. Smith , 276 Ga. 208, 209-210 576 SE2d 878 2003 power line owner is not liable if not given prior notice of work performed near power lines. Because of this determination by the Court of Appeals, appellee filed the instant action pursuant to OCGA §46-3-40 b for indemnity against appellant.
1. Appellant alleges that OCGA § 46-3-40 b is unconstitutional to the extent it violates due process by failing to require appellee to give appellant notice of the employees’ liability action against appellee; by failing to allow appellant to defend appellee in the employees’ underlying action; and by failing to allow appellant to reduce exposure by filing a OCGA § 9-15-14 claim for attorney’s fees in the employees’ underlying action. We disagree.
