There are instances, under Georgia law, where one may be the servant of two masters. Such a relationship arises where two masters employ a servant jointly, contribute equally to his wages and to the maintenance of his equipment, have equal rights to the use of the equipment, and have equal control over him. Wilson v. McCullough, 180 Ga. App. 579 ( 349 S.E.2d 751) (1986). Since none of these elements were present and the doctor had complete control and authority over medical decisions while in the operating room, this concept has no application here.

Finally, the installation of this type of equipment was part of Frazier's usual and regular business of his employment with Thompson. While the installation took place on a Saturday and Frazier's regular working hours with Thompson were Monday through Friday, Frazier admitted that most technicians, including himself, frequently worked for Thompson on Saturdays. Because this uncontroverted evidence establishes that DEMS did not have exclusive control and direction over Frazier for the installation of the x-ray machine, the trial court did not err in holding as a matter of law that Frazier was not a borrowed servant of DEMS. See Food Giant, 184 Ga. App. at 743-744; Wilson v. McCullough, 180 Ga. App. 579, 580 (1) ( 349 SE2d 751) (1986). We do not agree with Kidd's assertion that this holding is inconsistent with the trial court's ruling that a question of fact existed with respect to whether Frazier was acting as an employee of Thompson at the time of the installation.