Georgia Power Co. v. Diamond, 48456
| Decision Date | 07 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 48456,48456,2 |
| Citation | 130 Ga.App. 268,202 S.E.2d 704 |
| Parties | GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. Phillip DIAMOND et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Robert L. Pennington, David H. Flint, Atlanta, for appellant.
Savell, Williams, Cox & Angel, Henry Angel, Elmer L. Nash, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Edwin Elko, plaintiff, sued Georgia Power Company for personal injuries received when he came in contact with high voltage electric wires of the defendant. He alleged that he received electric shock, which caused him to fall approximately 35 to 40 feet from scaffolding on an apartment building under construction. He alleged that he was an employee of Bird (Byrd) Brothers Construction Company, a sub-contractor of Diamond and Kay Properties, and that he was 'following his employment as a laborer in setting up the scaffold so that work could progress on a building on the job site.'
Defendant answered and admitted that it had installed the electric wires serving the apartments, but denied any negligence.
Defendant then filed a third-party complaint against Diamond and Kay, as partners, doing business as Diamond and Kay Properties, alleging that although it had denied liability, the third-party defendant may be liable to Georgia Power Company for all or part of any sum which might be adjudged against defendant. The third-party defendants answered and denied any liability to defendant Georgia Power Company.
During the discovery phase of this case it was shown that plaintiff, a laborer, was an employee of Bird Brothers, who had a sub-contract with Diamond and Kay to perform certain 'stucco' work at certain apartments where plaintiff was injured. He was awarded workmen's compensation by the Workmen's Compensation Board against the general contractors, Diamond and Kay.
Thereafter, the third-party defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, contending there was no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding their liability, and that they were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. After hearing, the same was granted. The defendant, Georgia Power, appeals. Held:
1. 'A principal, intermediate, or sub-contractor shall be liable for compensation to any employee injured while in the employ of any of his subcontractors engaged upon the subject-matter of the contract, to the same extent as the immediate employer.' Code § 114-112, as amended (Ga.L.1969, p. 671).
2. Under Code § 114-103, as amended (Ga.L.1972, pp. 929, 930), the rights and remedies granted under the workmen's compensation law to an employee excludes all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representative, parents, dependents or next of kin, 'at common-law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service of death,' other than the employee's right to bring an action against a third-party tortfeasor. Thus, the only remedy the employee here had against the employer (or the general contractor as employer under Code § 114-112, supra), was under the workmen's compensation law.
3. The collection of full compensation from one employer shall bar recovery by the employee against any others, including principal, intermediate or subcontractor. Code § 114-112, as amended, supra. Thus,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aretz v. United States
...Ga. App. 18, 24-25, 38 S.E.2d 675; Williams Bros. Lumber Co. v. Meisel, 85 Ga.App. 72, 75, 68 S.E.2d 384; Georgia Power Company v. Diamond et al., 130 Ga.App. 268, 269, 202 S.E.2d 704; Sims et al. v. American Casualty Company et al., 131 Ga.App. 461, 468, 206 S.E.2d 121.19 "On general princ......
-
Skinner v. Reed-Prentice Division Package Machinery Co.
...A. Equipment, Inc. v. Farmoil, Inc. (Super.Ct. Hartford County 1974), 31 Conn.Supp. 322, 330 A.2d 99; Georgia: Georgia Power Co. v. Diamond (1973), 130 Ga.App. 268, 202 S.E.2d 704; Hawaii: Kamali v. Hawaiian Electric Co. (1972), 54 Haw. 153, 504 P.2d 861; Iowa: Iowa Power & Light Co. v. Abi......
-
Aretz v. United States
...The Government recognizes the rule that an employer is not a joint tortfeasor for purposes of contribution. See Georgia Power Company v. Diamond, 130 Ga.App. 268, 202 S.E.2d 704. However, defendant contends that the decisions to that effect are inapposite because the Court did not take into......
-
U.S. v. Aretz
...law preserves an employee's cause of action against a third-party tortfeasor. Code Ann. § 114-103; e. g., Ga. Power Co. v. Diamond, 130 Ga.App. 268 (2), 202 S.E.2d 704 (1973). Thus, the district court found the United States to be liable for the plaintiff's Certified Questions and Answers T......