Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Corbin
Decision Date | 24 November 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 3,GEORGIA-PACIFIC,No. 51411,51411,3 |
Citation | 222 S.E.2d 862,137 Ga.App. 37 |
Parties | CORPORATION v. P. C. CORBIN |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Corbin, plaintiff below and appellee here, brought suit for injuries received while working on a construction project at the Savannah plant of the defendant-appellant, Georgia-Pacific, alleging that such injuries were caused by the negligence of an employee of that corporation. Georgia-Pacific answered, contending that plaintiff in fact was its own employee and was therefore precluded from bringing an action for damages, his sole remedy being under our workmen's compensation statute (Code Ann. § 114-103). The question of who was plaintiff's employer was submitted to the jury and resolved against Georgia-Pacific; plaintiff was awarded $70,000 in damages. The defendant corporation appeals.
Adams Adams, Brennan & Gardner, Edward T. Brennan, Savannah, for appellant.
Downing, McAleer & Gaskin, James E. McAleer, Savannah, for appellee.
Georgia-Pacific's enumerations of error all go to a single argument-that the evidence demanded a finding that the plaintiff was its employee and not that of Thomas E. Gates & Sons, Inc., a contracting firm. This argument is predicated upon testimony which Georgia-Pacific contends proves that the individual who actually contracted for the employment of the plaintiff was both its own special agent and also the general agent of the Gates company. There is no dispute that this individual, Robert Gould, was an employee of Gates at the time plaintiff was hired but Georgia-Pacific argues that Gould was also its 'borrowed servant' of Gates and that the employment of plaintiff was effectuated by Gould in his capacity as special agent of Georgia-Pacific and that plaintiff thereby became its employee.
Evidence was introduced to show that Thomas E. Gates & Sons, Inc. had performed work for Georgia-Pacific at the Savannah plant on four occasions. On each job Robert Gould had been sent by Gates, his employer, to perform duties on the project. There was testimony that organized labor could not be dispatched to work for a corporation without going through a contractor who had entered into a contract with the union and that before union men would be referred to an employer it was necessary that the prospective employer had either agreed to enter into a contract with the union or had previously entered into such a contract. Georgia-Pacific had never reached such an agreement with plaintiff's union; Gates had. Wesley Gates, secretary-treasurer of the Gates corporation, testified that since his company had the requisite agreement with the union, it had agreed on previous occasions to 'front' construction projects for Georgia-Pacific and that Gould would be 'loaned' to Georgia-Pacific to carry out this arrangement. As part of this 'fronting' agreement, on jobs prior to the 1972 project involved here, Georgia-Pacific would give Gates the money used for labor and Gates would simply run it through their books while at other times labor costs were paid directly by Georgia-Pacific. In 1972 however, Gates and Georgia-Pacific reached an agreement whereby Gates would furnish Georgia-Pacific a Project Supervisor (Gould), that Georgia-Pacific would pay Gates for the use of Gould and Gould would in turn be paid by Gates and that 'all material, equipment, and labor' would be furnished by Georgia-Pacific. Acting pursuant to this agreement Gates sent Gould to the Savannah project. Gould contacted plaintiff's union and held a meeting at the home of the union's business agent. The employment referral slips given to plaintiff directed him to Gates for employment on the Georgia-Pacific project. Plaintiff was hired by Gould and while working on the construction job he received the injuries for which this suit was instituted.
The applicability of the 'borrowed servant' theory in cases involving workmen's compensation has been a source of confusion in this state. Assuming that Gould was Georgia-Pacific's 'special employee' and that he and not the plaintiff had been injured, no suit for damages could have been brought against Georgia-Pacific, his 'special master.' Forrester v. Scott, 125 Ga.App. 245, 187 S.E.2d 323. Yet the 'borrowed servant' doctrine would not preclude Gould from recovering workmen's compensation from either his general or his special employer. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Forrester, 126 Ga.App. 762, 191 S.E.2d 787. Thus there appeared to be an apparent inconsistency in that a 'borrowed servant' who is injured while working for his 'special master' had no recourse in damages against either of his employers but could recover under workmen's compensation from either his general or his special master; Judge Eberhardt's dissent in the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. decision, stating that the workmen's compensation proceeding should have been instituted against the special rather than the general employer, pointed out this seeming inconsistency and noted '. . . I cannot understand how those who joined...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Hand, A95A0082
...as to the special relationship.' Six Flags Over Ga. v. Hill, supra at 378(2) (citing and distinguishing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Corbin, 137 Ga.App. 37 (222 SE2d 862) (1975))." Rothrock v. Jeter, 212 Ga.App. 85, 86-87, 441 S.E.2d 88 In the present case, Hand testified that (1) he received h......
-
Hill v. Six Flags Over Georgia, Inc.
...of the evidence might show otherwise at a jury trial. This case is very similar on its facts to that of Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Corbin, 137 Ga.App. 37, 40-41, 222 S.E.2d 862, involving an alleged borrowed servant although that case was affirmed after jury determination. This court, at page......
-
Six Flags Over Georgia, Inc. v. Hill
...question of fact as to whether Hill was a loaned employee, the Court of Appeals found this case similar to Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Corbin, 137 Ga.App. 37, 222 S.E.2d 862 (1975). There the Court of Appeals indicated that in order for a borrowed servant to be precluded from suing the special......
- Baker v. State, 51449