Kidd v. Dentsply International, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Alta Refg. v. Americold Logistics

    301 Ga. App. 738 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that none of the requirements of the borrowed-servant rule were satisfied and evidence showed that only the general master could remove the employee from his assigned task

    Kidd v. Dentsply Intl. Moreover, Kidd v. Dentsply Intl., 278 Ga. App. 346, 348 (1) ( 629 SE2d 58) (2006). [t]here is a distinction between the act of merely following directions while giving assistance to another's servant and the status of being within the "complete control" of another's servant.

  2. Miller v. Polk

    872 S.E.2d 754 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Describing the 1998 arrest and 2013 conviction for driving under the influence — without specifying the substance of which Hamm was under the influence

    Under this theory of recovery, however, "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." Kidd v. Dentsply Intl. , 278 Ga. App. 346, 350 (2), 629 S.E.2d 58 (2006) (citation and punctuation omitted). Neither Calvin nor Jerline was a party to the Professional Services Agreement.

  3. Perdue v. Atlanta Bldg. Maint. Co. Inc.

    714 S.E.2d 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kidd v. Dentsply Intl., 278 Ga.App. 346, 350(2), 629 S.E.2d 58 (2006). Accord Widner v. Brookins, Inc., 236 Ga.App. 563, 564(2)(a), 512 S.E.2d 405 (1999).

  4. Perdue v. Atlanta Building Maintenance Company

    714 S.E.2d 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kidd v. Dentsply Int'l., 278 Ga. App. 346, 350 (2) ( 629 S.E.2d 58) (2006). Accord Widner v. Brookins, Inc., 236 Ga. App. 563, 564 (2) (a) ( 512 S.E.2d 405) (1999).

  5. Card v. Dublin Constr. Co.

    337 Ga. App. 804 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    But “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.” Kidd v. Dentsply Intl. , 278 Ga.App. 346, 350, 629 S.E.2d 58 (2006) (citation omitted). The Cards are strangers to that contract.