Brooks v. Oil-Dri Corp. of Georgia, OIL-DRI

• Decision Date: 14 July 1992
• Docket Number: OIL-DRI,No. A92A0643,A92A0643
• Citation: 422 S.E.2d 22,205 Ga.App. 214
• Parties: BROOKS v.CORPORATION OF GEORGIA.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 22

422 S.E.2d 22

205 Ga.App. 214

BROOKS v. OIL-DRI CORPORATION OF GEORGIA.

No. A92A0643.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

July 14, 1992.

Reconsideration Denied July 28, 1992.

Certiorari Denied Oct. 2, 1992.

Beauchamp & Associates, William Eckhardt, Albany, for appellant.

Hodges, Erwin, Hedrick & Kraselsky, William A. Erwin, Albany, for appellee.

COOPER, Judge.

Appellant, a welder employed by Ironwood Construction Company ("Ironwood"), brought suit against appellee to recover for injuries sustained when appellant fell from an elevator on premises owned by appellee. Appellant contended that appellee was negligent in failing to disclose that the elevator was unsafe. The trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed.

Appellee owned and operated a mining business which utilized two vertical bucket elevators. Elevator E-110 was approximately 125 feet high and was adjacent to and connected to elevator E-111, which was approximately 90 feet high. Elevator E-110 was an older piece of equipment which was in place when appellee purchased the property in 1985 and had become difficult to maintain because appellee did not have the equipment to maintain an elevator of that height. Appellee, through its plant manager Dewey McCabe, entered into an oral agreement with Joseph Lacayo, the president of Ironwood, for Ironwood to reduce the height of elevator E-110 by 30 feet. Ironwood had previously dismantled a similar elevator on appellee's property. Before beginning the dismantling, Lacayo and Zendel Vickers, a construction superintendent for Ironwood, examined E-110 to determine the best way to go about reducing the height. Vickers and Lacayo knew that the elevator had previously been patched by appellee but their inspection of E-110 revealed that it was structurally sound. Vickers and Lacayo decided that the best way to reduce the height of E-110 was to dismantle it in reverse order by first removing five pipes which connected the elevator to silos and rail siding; then hooking onto the top of the elevator with a crane and removing the guy wires which kept wind from affecting the elevator; and then cutting off the 30-foot section and lowering the elevator to the ground. It is undisputed that none of appellee's personnel participated in the decision of how to dismantle the elevator or exercised any control over how Ironwood performed the work. On the day of the dismantling, appellee's personnel used the elevator to load a railroad car, and the elevator was structurally intact at that time. Ironwood then took control of the elevator to begin dismantling. Appellant was part of the crew assembled to dismantle the elevator. After the fourth pipe had been removed, Vickers checked to make sure that the elevator had not shifted. Vickers then instructed the crew to remove the last pipe, but when that pipe was removed, elevator E-110 collapsed, carrying elevator E-111 with it. Appellant was standing on the platform near the top of elevator E-111 and was injured when elevator E-111 fell to the ground.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to appellee. Summary judgment is proper if "the pleadings ..., together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law...." OCGA § 9-11-56(c). "On motion for summary judgment, 'the party opposing the motion is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. [Cits.]' [Cit.]" Eiberger v. West, 247 Ga. 767, 769(1a), 281 S.E.2d 148 (1981). Appellant contends that elevator E-110 was unsafe; that it had been patched several times by appellee; that it showed...