The opinion
HUNTER, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority opinion held that summary judgment was appropriately granted in defendant’s favor. However, as I believe a genuine issue of material fact exists, I respectfully dissent.
“Summary judgment is recognized as a drastic remedy, and, particularly in cases involving the question of negligence or reasonable care, that remedy is an appropriate procedure only under exceptional circumstances.” Brown v. Power Co., 45 N.C. App. 384, 386 , 263 S.E.2d 366, 368 (1980).
“Electricity is an inherently dangerous substance.” Snow v. Power Co., 297 N.C. 591, 596 , 256 S.E.2d 227, 231 (1979). We note that a City engaged in the proprietary activity of furnishing electricity is liable for injury due to its negligence upon the same principles applicable to privately-owned power companies. See Dale v. Morganton, 270 N.C. 567, 573 , 155 S.E.2d 136, 142 (1967).
“A supplier of electricity owes the highest degree of care to the public because of the dangerous nature of electricity.” Sweat v. Brunswick Electric Membership Corp., 133 N.C. App. 63, 65 , 514 S.E.2d 526, 528 (1999). As such, electric companies are required to use reasonable care in the construction, maintenance, and inspec- *501 lion of their lines and apparatus where they are likely to come in contact with the public. See Helms v. Power Co., 192 N.C. 784, 786 , 136 S.E. 9, 10 (1926) (power company’s negligence in maintaining wires coming in contact with telephone wires injuring lineman held for jury); see also Benton v. Public-Service Corporation, 165 N.C. 354 , 81 S.E. 448, 449 (1914) (where intestate, a boy of 12, climbed a tree in a city street, and, coming in contact with one of defendant’s high-tension electric wires passing through the tree at a place where the insulation had been worn off, received injuries from which he died, defendant was guilty of actionable negligence); and Sweat, 133 N.C. App. 63, 65 , 514 S.E.2d 526, 528 .
In fact:
The degree of care which will satisfy this requirement varies, of course, with the circumstances, but it must always be commensurate with the dangers involved, and where the wires maintained by a company are designed to carry a strong and powerful current of electricity, the law imposes upon the company the duty of exercising the utmost care and prudence consistent with the practical operation of its business, to .avoid injury to those likely to come in contact with its wires.
Helms, 192 N.C. 784, 786 , 136 S.E. 9, 10 . Additionally, “ ‘[a] company maintaining electric lines over which a current of high voltage is carried is bound to exercise the necessary care and prudence to prevent injury at places where others have the right to go either for work, business or pleasure.’ ” Ellis v. Power Co., 193 N.C. 357, 360 , 137 S.E. 163, 165 (1927) (emphasis in original and emphasis omitted) (quoting Love v. Power Co., 86 W. Va. 393, 397 , 103 S.E. 352, 353 (1920)).
In its opinion, the majority states that “[p]laintiff has not set forth specific facts establishing that defendant had actual or constructive notice of any break in the wires’ insulation.” However, regarding notice, our Supreme Court has stated:
“The owner or operator of an electric plant is bound to exercise a reasonable degree of care in erecting pole lines, selecting appliances, insulating the wire wherever people have a right to go and are liable to come in contact with them, and in maintaining a system of inspection by which any change which has occurred in the physical conditions surrounding the plant, poles, or lines of wire, which would tend to create or increase the danger to persons lawfully in pursuit of their business or *502 pleasure, may be reasonably discovered. It would hardly do to say that the defendant can only be required to exercise due diligence after it received notice of any defect in its appliances or of any change in the physical conditions surrounding them, for this would be placing a premium upon negligent ignorance. ”
Ellis, 193 N.C. at 360 , 137 S.E. at 165 (emphasis omitted, emphasis in original and emphasis added) (quoting Bourke v. Butte Elec. & Power Co., 33 Mont. 267 , 83 P. 470, 474 (1905)). Moreover:
“It is also the duty of such company to make reasonable and proper inspection of its appliances. This duty does not contemplate such inspection as would absolutely forestall injuries. Whether in a given case the duty to inspect, as reasonable care, prudence and foresight would suggest, has been performed is a question for the jury to determine under all the facts and circumstances of the event.”
Ellis, 193 N.C. at 361 , 137 S.E. at 165 (quoting Alabama City G. & A. Ry. Co. v. Appleton, 171 Ala. 324, 330 , 54 So. 638, 640 , Am. Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1181 (1911)).
In his complaint, plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that the City of High Point was negligent in “[failing to inspect its electrical transmission wire leading to the residence . . . ,” “[fJailing to trim tree branch or branches that had grown around said wire . . . ,” and “[flailing to maintain its electrical wire in an area close to a house and close to cable television wires . . . .” Plaintiff presented evidence which tended to show that a tree branch, located on the property at 1701 Country Club Road in High Point, North Carolina, had grown onto the electrical lines leading from the street to the house and caused the electrical wire to lose its insulation or otherwise break. This break in the electrical wire caused a feedback of approximately 100 volts onto the cable television lines on which plaintiff was working.
Additionally, plaintiff contends that he was at least forty inches away from any electrical line while working, and at no time did he come into contact with any of the electrical lines. Furthermore, the Director of Electric Utilities for the City of High Point stated that the City, “regularly trims trees around electrical wires in order to prevent the trees from coming in contact with the wires”; and a report was proffered showing that the City had inspected and trimmed the trees on Country Club Road approximately two months prior to plaintiffs accident. Regarding the tree limb that caused the electrical line to *503 lose its insulation or break, plaintiff stated in his deposition that the City must have missed it while trimming.
Moreover, Duane Church, an installation supervisor for Cablevision in High Point, arrived at the scene shortly after plaintiffs accident. In his deposition, Mr. Church stated, “I saw what looked to be about a three inch to four inch limb with roughly an inch to two inches of the limb actually grown around the power drop.” “[I]t was actually . . . encased in, in the limb itself.” In fact, the City does not dispute any pertinent facts of plaintiff’s accident, however, the City does assert that plaintiff failed to show that the City had any notice whatsoever of the break in the wires’ insulation.
In sum, I am of the opinion that the City of High Point should have been aware that a cable repairman might likely come into contact with its electrical lines. Based on plaintiff’s evidence that he did not touch the electrical lines, he was at least forty inches away from the electrical lines, the tree limb was growing through the electrical line, and the observation that the City must have missed this particular limb when trimming, a genuine issue of material fact exists. In light of our Courts’ treatment of electricity and “the highest degree of care” owed to the public because of the dangerousness of its nature, whether the duty to inspect and maintain had been performed is a question for the jury to determine under all the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, summary judgment was inappropriately granted here.