King v. Midas Realty Corp.

3 Citing cases

  1. Torrington Co. v. Hill

    219 Ga. App. 453 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 8 times

    ]' [Cit.]" King v. Midas Realty Corp., 204 Ga. App. 590, 591 ( 420 S.E.2d 62) (1992). 2.

  2. Englehart v. Oki America, Inc.

    209 Ga. App. 151 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 19 times

    Rather, OKI surrendered the premises to Weeks, OKI did not interfere with Weeks' status as an independent contractor, Weeks had the duty of providing for the safety of its workers and OKI had no such duty. King v. Midas Realty Corp., 204 Ga. App. 590 ( 420 S.E.2d 62) (1992); Bryant v. Village Centers, 167 Ga. App. 220 ( 305 S.E.2d 907) (1983). Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to OKI. Modlin v. Swift Textiles, 180 Ga. App. 726 ( 350 S.E.2d 273) (1986).

  3. Ga. Power Co. v. Campbell

    360 Ga. App. 422 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Noting "no dispute that the [asbestos] insulation work at issue ... constituted ‘an improvement to real property’ "

    Given this evidence, we conclude that factual questions remain as to whether Georgia Power relinquished possession of the premises and control of the insulation work to North Brothers. See Law , 342 Ga. App. at 376, 802 S.E.2d 408 ; see also Mullinax , 354 Ga. App. at 198 (3) (b), 840 S.E.2d 666 (fact question about whether the owner relinquished possession); Ramcke v. Ga. Power Co. , 306 Ga. App. 736, 739-740 (3), 703 S.E.2d 13 (2010) (to be liable, owner must have ability to direct the time or manner of the work done, but it is not sufficient that owner can, under contract, inspect the work to ensure compliance or stop the work if it was not in compliance); Johnson v. Kimberly Clark , 233 Ga. App. 508, 510-511, 504 S.E.2d 536 (1998) (factual question over possession where premises owner required one of its employees to be present in any area in which the contractor was working); compare King v. Midas Realty Corp. , 204 Ga. App. 590, 420 S.E.2d 62 (1992) (terms of contract showed owner relinquished possession and control, and the right to require certain results under the contract was insufficient to find that premises owner had not relinquished control); Modlin v. Swift Textiles , 180 Ga. App. 726, 350 S.E.2d 273 (1986) (provisions in contract showed that premises owner relinquished control); Bryant v. Village Centers , 167 Ga. App. 220, 222 (1), 305 S.E.2d 907 (1983) (same). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Georgia Power's motion for summary judgment on this claim.