Batson-Cook Co. v. Poteat, BATSON-COOK
| Decision Date | 12 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | BATSON-COOK,No. 56328,56328 |
| Parties | COMPANY v. POTEAT et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Henning, Chambers & Mabry, Walter B. McClelland, Atlanta, for appellant.
Hurt, Richardson, Garner, Todd & Cadenhead, W. Seaborn Jones, Paul M. Talmadge, Jr., Atlanta, McCurdy & Candler, George H. Carley, Charles H. Hyatt, Decatur, for appellees.
This is an appeal from the grant of a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of co-defendant Ceco, challenging the validity of the indemnity provision in the contract between co-defendants Ceco and Batson-Cook. Plaintiff brought suit alleging that he was injured at the construction site of the Emory Law School when a pan slab device fell on him. Plaintiff further alleged that co-defendant Batson-Cook was the general contractor at the job and co-defendant Ceco was a subcontractor. Plaintiff's wife also filed a consortium suit arising from her husband's alleged injury. Both defendants filed answers to plaintiffs' complaints, and Batson-Cook cross claimed against Ceco seeking indemnity. Thereafter, both defendants moved for partial summary judgment concerning the validity of the indemnity provisions in the contract between them.
Co-defendant Ceco performed its work on the Emory Law School pursuant to a written contract with co-defendant Batson-Cook. This subcontract agreement was a standard printed form prepared by Batson-Cook; however, certain typed portions requested by Ceco were added. The standard form printed provision pertaining to indemnity, Article 11.20, stated as follows: "The Subcontractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Contractor and all of his agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorneys' fees arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Subcontractor's Work under the Contract Documents, provided that any such claim, damage, loss, or expense (a) is attributable to bodily injury . . . and (b) is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by him or anyone for whose acts he may be liable, Regardless of whether it is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)
Subsequently, the following general provision 1 of Article 2 was typed on the printed form contract: "While Subcontractor will hold Contractor harmless from claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foshee v. Harris
...written, the written portion will prevail when the two portions appear to be in conflict. OCGA § 13-2-2(7); Batson-Cook Co. v. Poteat, 147 Ga.App. 506, 249 S.E.2d 319 (1978). See also Atlanta Baggage etc. Co. v. Loftin, 88 Ga.App. 98, 76 S.E.2d 92 (1953); Hodsdon v. Whitworth, 153 Ga.App. 7......
-
Lester v. Crooms, Inc.
...Code Ann. § 20-704(7) (Ga.L.1964, pp. 414, 415); Stanley v. Greenfield, 207 Ga. 390(2), 61 S.E.2d 818; Batson-Cook Co. v. Poteat, 147 Ga.App. 506(1), 249 S.E.2d 319. The handwritten portion shows both were served. Although the defendant attempts to prove, by his affidavit, that his minor gr......
-
Hall v. Skate Escape, Ltd.
...claims--apparently presented by third parties. See Redfern Meats v. Hertz Corp., 134 Ga.App. 381(3), 215 S.E.2d 10; Batson-Cook Co. v. Poteat, 147 Ga.App. 506, 249 S.E.2d 319. It does not contain language which purports to prohibit the customer from bringing suit for negligence of the defen......
-
Jackson v. Brinegar, Inc.
...of the contract with which it conflicts, citing Augusta Factory v. Mente & Co., 132 Ga. 503, 508, 64 S.E. 553; Batson-Cook Co. v. Poteat, 147 Ga.App. 506, 249 S.E.2d 319; Shackelford v. Fitzgerald, 151 Ga. 35, 39, 105 S.E. 597; and Surles v. Milikin, 97 Ga. 485, 486, 25 S.E. 322. He further......