Fields v. B B Pipeline Co.

10 Citing cases

  1. Watkins v. First South Utility

    284 Ga. App. 547 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing employer vicariously liable for negligence of independent contractor in performing nondelegable duty imposed on employer by contract or statute

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Fields v. B B Pipeline Co., 147 Ga. App. 875, 876 ( 250 SE2d 582) (1978) (contractual duty that "`grantee . . . shall exercise reasonable diligence in doing the necessary work . . . so as to avoid damaging the property'" was insufficient to bring the case within the statutory exception). See also Faubion v. Piedmont Engineering c. Corp., 178 Ga. App. 256, 258-260 (2) ( 342 SE2d 718) (1986) (contractual duty "to see that the work to repair the warehouse was done skillfully, carefully, diligently and in a workmanlike manner" was insufficient to bring the case within the exception); Southern Mills v. Newton, 91 Ga. App. 738, 742 (2) (a) ( 87 SE2d 109) (1955) (contract language requiring defendant to perform work "in accordance with the laws of the State of Georgia" was insufficient to bring the case within the exception).

  2. Kidd v. Dentsply International, Inc.

    278 Ga. App. 346 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) Toys `R' Us v. Atlanta Economic Dev. Corp., 195 Ga. App. 195, 196 (1) (A) ( 393 SE2d 44) (1990); Fields v. B B Pipeline Co., 147 Ga. App. 875, 876-877 ( 250 SE2d 582) (1978) ("[T]he cases which have construed the statutory exception [(OCGA § 51-2-5 (3))] have emphasized the word `express' and the necessity that such contractual obligation be placed upon the particular employer as opposed to any independent contractor.") (citations and punctuation omitted). See also Dennis, 196 Ga. App. at 266 (2); Faubion v. Piedmont Engineering Constr. Corp., 178 Ga. App. 256, 258-259 (2) ( 342 SE2d 718) (1986).

  3. Luther v. Wayne Frier Home Center of Tifton

    592 S.E.2d 470 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 3 times

    Further, the contract on its face does not in any way restrict Home Center's right to subcontract the breakdown and removal of the trade-in, as argued by the Luthers, and Home Center is therefore not liable if this were done negligently. See PYA/Monarch, Inc. v. Higley, 219 Ga. App. 199, 201(2) ( 464 S.E.2d 630) (1995); Fields v. B B Pipeline Co., 147 Ga. App. 875 ( 250 S.E.2d 582) (1978). Judgment affirmed. Barnes and Adams, JJ., concur.

  4. Pya/Monarch, Inc. v. Higley

    464 S.E.2d 630 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Fields v. B B Pipeline Co., 147 Ga. App. 875, 876 ( 250 S.E.2d 582) (1978). This finding appears to derive from a privity requirement — the contractual duties under which the employer would be liable for the acts of the independent contractor cannot be enforced by one not a party to the contract.

  5. Carter v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    197 Ga. App. 738 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 10 times

    While adopting the statement of facts set forth in the district court's order and agreeing with the district court's conclusion that no master-servant relationship had existed between Allstate and the Howells, the superior court took issue with that court's conclusion "that OCGA § 51-2-5 (3) applies to the facts of this case so as to possibly hold the employer, Allstate, liable for the negligent acts of the independent contractor Howell." In this regard, the court was persuaded by cases such as Faubion v. Piedmont Engineering c. Corp., 178 Ga. App. 256 (2) ( 342 S.E.2d 718) (1986), and Fields v. B B Pipeline Co., 147 Ga. App. 875 ( 250 S.E.2d 582) (1978), that the contractual duty referred to in § 51-2-5 (3) must be expressly imposed by the contract and that the mere breach by an independent contractor of an implied contractual duty to perform his work in a skillful, diligent and workmanlike manner would not support the imposition of vicarious liability against the employer. The superior court accordingly granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment with respect to the tort claims asserted in the complaint.

  6. Dennis v. Malt

    395 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 9 times

    Appellant has failed to demonstrate an alleged violation of an express contractual obligation which would fall within the statutory exception. See Fields v. B B Pipeline Co., 147 Ga. App. 875, 876-877 ( 250 S.E.2d 582) (1978). 3. Likewise, in argument in brief, appellant asserts that OCGA § 51-2-5 (3) governs because defendants improperly ordered three-quarter inch flooring for the stockroom area in which he was injured rather than the seven-eighths inch flooring contractually required.

  7. Toys ‘R' Us, Inc. v. Atlanta Economic Development Corp.

    195 Ga. App. 195 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 21 times

    This provision has been interpreted as requiring an express obligation by the employer to be responsible for the independent contractor's conduct. Fields v. B B Pipeline Co., 147 Ga. App. 875 ( 250 S.E.2d 582) (1978). See Faubion v.Piedmont c. Corp., 178 Ga. App. 256 ( 342 S.E.2d 718) (1986) (although decided in contract, previous tort cases were used as precedent for the interpretation of the code section).

  8. Faubion v. Piedmont Eng. c. Corp.

    178 Ga. App. 256 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times

    Therefore, absent an express contractual duty, Piedmont cannot be held liable for damage caused by the collateral torts of independent contractors. See Fields v. B B Pipeline Co., 147 Ga. App. 875 ( 250 S.E.2d 582) (1978); OCGA § 51-2-5 (3). In Fields, plaintiff granted an easement to the Clayton County Water Authority to construct a sewer across his property.

  9. Amear v. Hall

    164 Ga. App. 163 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 45 times
    In Amear, plaintiff was an employee of a contractor hired to do carpentry work and fiberglass installation for the defendant.

    An individual contractor is expected to determine for himself whether his place of employment is safe or unsafe, and ordinarily may not recover against the owner for injuries sustained in the performance of the contract. Chambers v. Peacock Const. Co., 115 Ga. App. 670, 675 (2), supra; see generally 57 CJS 379, Master Servant § 607. Unless the owner and an injured employee have a relationship of master-servant, the employer is generally not responsible for injuries occasioned by the method by which work is done by the employee. Atlanta Fla. R. Co. v. Kimberly, 87 Ga. 161, 169 ( 13 S.E. 277); Fields v. B B Pipeline Co., 147 Ga. App. 875 (3) ( 250 S.E.2d 582). "It is also the general rule that the independent contractor's employer is under no duty to take affirmative steps to guard or protect the [individual] contractor's employees against the consequences of the contractor's negligence, or to provide for their safety."

  10. Paul v. Jones

    288 S.E.2d 13 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 3 times

    Code § 105-501. See also Robbins Home Improvement Co. v. Guthrie, 213 Ga. 138 ( 97 S.E.2d 153); Fields v. B B Pipeline Co., 147 Ga. App. 875 ( 250 S.E.2d 582). However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule found in Code § 105-502, including if the wrongful act (the alleged manner in constructing the road) is a violation of a duty imposed by express contract upon the employer.