This is the second appearance of this case before this court. In Kull v. Six Flags Over Georgia , 254 Ga. App. 897 564 SE2d 747 2002, this court reversed the grant of summary judgment to Six Flags on Kull’s personal injury claim. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed in Six Flags Over Georgia v. Kull , 276 Ga. 210 576 SE2d 880 2003, and remanded for us to address “the question of whether OSHA regulations apply to this litigation, and if so whether the evidence compels a finding that Kull was contributorily negligent per se. This issue must be decided in order to determine whether the grant of summary judgment was appropriate.” Id. at 212. After a review of the record, we conclude that OSHA regulations do apply here, and that the evidence indeed compels a finding of per se contributory negligence on the part of Kull. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. A detailed account of the relevant facts may be found in the earlier appearance of this case. Kull , supra, 254 Ga. App. 897. In brief, Kull’s employer, Mahalo Sign Company, was under contract to maintain an electronic scoreboard on the Six Flags property. In the course of maintaining this scoreboard, Kull did not turn off the power to the board and did not check the circuit because he believed that a fuse had blown. But, due to a wiring defect in the nearby transformer box, the circuit remained energized. Kull was in the process of replacing a light bulb when he broke the glass globe and used a pair of metal pliers in an attempt to grasp the metal base of the bulb and remove it. The still-energized circuit shocked Kull and threw him from the ladder, causing his injuries. Id. at 899.
“As the trial court recognized, generally, negligence per se arises when a statute or ordinance is violated. The violation of certain mandatory regulations may also amount to negligence per se if the regulations impose a legal duty.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Hubbard v. DOT , 256 Ga. App. 342, 349-350 3 568 SE2d 559 2002. Before negligence per se can be determined, a trial court must consider 1 whether the injured person falls within the class of persons it was intended to protect and 2 whether the harm complained of was the harm the statute was intended to guard against. Finally, if the court finds negligence per se, the plaintiffs must then demonstrate a causal connection between the negligence per se and the injury. And it is generally a jury question as to whether or not such negligence proximately caused the injury.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Hubbard , supra at 350. Here, Kull was required by 29 USC § 654 b to “comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.”
