We also affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the contract claim because the contract neither referred to the contents of the trade-in home nor restricted the seller's right to subcontract. 264 Ga. App. 827 ( 592 SE2d 470) (2003). Id.

See Beck v. Paideia School, 191 Ga. App. 183 (1) ( 381 SE2d 132) (1989) ("Whether the relationship of the parties under the contract for performance is that of master and servant or that of employer and independent contractor lies in whether the contract gives, or the employer assumes, the right to control the time, manner and method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity with the contract.") (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Dennis v. Malt, 196 Ga. App. 263, 265 (1) ( 395 SE2d 894) (1990) ("[W]here there is a specific [agreement] to do a certain piece of work according to specifications for a stipulated sum, it is inferable that the right of control was not retained and an independent contractor relation[ship] existed.") (citations and punctuation omitted); Luther v. Wayne Frier Home Center of Tifton, 264 Ga. App. 827, 828 (1) ( 592 SE2d 470) (2003). Kidd's negligence claims against both Dentsply and DEMS fail under OCGA § 51-2-5 (3) because of our prior holding that "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."

Neither party cites any other legal authority that addresses whether welding and torch cutting are ultra hazardous activities for purposes of imposing strict liability. The court's own research revealed several cases from other jurisdictions that followed Woodward. See, e.g., Luther v. Wayne Frier Home Center of Tifton, Inc., 592 S.E.2d 470, 472 (Ga.App. 2003); Matomco Oil Co. v. Arctic Mechanical, Inc., 796 P.2d 1336, 1341-42 (Ala. 1990) ("We further conclude that the welding, buffing, or grinding of a petroleum tanker, in contrast to petroleum tanker transport, is not an ultrahazardous activity"); Valley Electric, Inc. v. Doughty, 528 P.2d 927, 928 (Co. App. 1974) ("We agree that welding with an oxygen-acetylene cutting torch presents some hazards. . . . However, we are not convinced that its use is an inherently dangerous activity which imposes liability upon the user without proof of negligence"). The court finds the Woodward line of cases convincing.