Hand v. Harrison, 37605
| Decision Date | 21 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 37605,No. 2,37605,2 |
| Citation | 108 S.E.2d 814,99 Ga.App. 429 |
| Parties | Jasper HAND v. J. I. HARRISON |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Count 1 of the petition, seeking recovery for injuries sustained by reason of the engligence of the defendant, an independent contractor, in turning over to the plaintiff's employer a table equipped with gas burners, without sealing the end of the gas line, so that when the plaintiff turned on the gas jet preparatory to lighting the warming burner an explosion ensued in which he was injured, stated a cause of action for the reason that the instrumentality released by the defendant was so negligently defective as to be imminently dangerous to third persons.
2. An action in tort cannot be maintained by a third person not privy to the contract, for a breach of warranty which constitutes a mere contractual obligation between the defendant and the other contracting parties.
3. Every person owes a duty to exercise ordinary care not to injure others, whether they stand in a contractual relationship to him or not. What amounts to ordinary care under the circumstances is controlled, among other things, by the nature of the instrumentality, for greater care is necessary where it possesses inherently dangerous propensities if negligently constructed. Even with potentially dangerous instrumentalities, such as gas and electricity, the duty is still that of ordinary care under the circumstances, and not extraordinary care as a matter of law.
Jasper Hand filed an action in three counts for damages in the Superior Court of Jeff Davis County against J. I. Harrison trading as Harrison Construction Company. The allegations of count 1 are substantially as follows: The plaintiff was employed as a maintenance supervisor for the Jeff Davis Elementary School in Hazelhurst, Georgia; said school, under a contract with the State School Building Authority, was erected by the defendant; the contract and specifications called for the defendant to erect and install certain steam heating tables in the school lunchroom, and to make mechanical and electrical connections; the defendant installed the tables and the school was completed about October 10, 1956; the heating equipment and tables were not used at any time during that year; on September 4, 1957, the plaintiff was engaged in lighting the burners in said lunchroom tables; the gas line under tables, and obstructed from the plaintiff's view, had been left unplugged; due to the noise of fans running the plaintiff could not hear the sound of escaping gas; as he struck a match to light a burner about three feet from the open end of the unplugged gas line there was an explosion in which he sustained the injuries for which he sues; the fact that the gas line was unplugged was the proximate cause of his injuries. Count 2 predicates liability on the breach by the defendant of one of the provisions of his contract with the School Building Authority to the effect that defendant 'shall guarantee all fixtures against any defect in workmanship or material for a period of one year after date of acceptance' and that 'all workmanship shall be of the best quality.' Count 3 is based on the proposition that the defendant, knowing that gas was to be used in the warming of food in the warming tables, 'was charged with extraordinary care in seeing that there was no defect in the installation of same.' General demurrers to each count of the petition were sustained, and this judgment is assigned as error.
T. Ross Sharpe, T. Malone Sharpe, Lyons, for plaintiff in error.
Gordon Knox, Jr., Hazlehurst, J. H. Highsmith, Baxley, for defendant in error.
1. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aretz v. United States
...is that in the case of dangerous instrumentalities the defendant's duty is one of ordinary and not extraordinary care. Hand v. Harrison, 99 Ga.App. 429, 108 S.E.2d 814; Lemming v. J. P. Roberts & Sons, Inc., 130 Ga.App. 564, 569, 203 S.E.2d 898. However, "ordinary care as to a thing which i......
-
Aretz v. U.S.
...for violation of a specific private duty). In discussing the government's negligence, the district court cited Hand v. Harrison, 99 Ga.App. 429, 108 S.E.2d 814 (1959). The case enunciated, under Georgia law, the common principle of negligence that every person owes a duty of ordinary care n......
-
Atkinson v. Kirchoff Enterprises, Inc.
...for jury determination." What amounts to the exercise of ordinary care under the circumstances is a jury question. Hand v. Harrison, 99 Ga.App. 429 (3), 108 S.E.2d 814 (1959). There is no evidence which absolutely resolves that issue as a matter of law. Thus, summary judgment would not be a......
-
Williams v. United States
...than where it is, according to common experience, a thing relatively harmless even when * * * negligently used". Hand v. Harrison, 1959, 99 Ga.App. 429, 108 S.E.2d 814, 816.5 In Georgia law foreseeability is Applying the Georgia standard, we conclude as a matter of law that Smith should hav......