Jova/Daniels/Busby, Inc. v. B & W Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 66324,66324 |
| Citation | 307 S.E.2d 97,167 Ga.App. 551 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | JOVA/DANIELS/BUSBY, INC. v. B & W MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. |
David A. Handley, James C. Huckaby, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Lenwood A. Jackson, Willie E. Robinson, Alfred J. Turk III, H. Andrew Owen, Jr., John W. Greenfield, Moreton Rolleston, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
This is another appeal arising out of the claimed defective plumbing in the construction of a housing project for the elderly located in Atlanta, Georgia, otherwise known as the Piedmont Road Housing Project for the Elderly. In Barge & Co. v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 163 Ga.App. 573, 295 S.E.2d 851, many of the facts with reference to this housing project were discussed, although that case involved insurance in a declaratory judgment proceeding. We refer to that case on account of the facts set forth as to the contentions of the parties. The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta sued the architectural concern which had contracted with it for certain professional services and after it was discovered there were certain defective conditions in the horizontal plumbing drain lines resulting from the plumbing installation work at the project. The action was brought in two counts contending that the housing authority had relied on the contract with the architect in the purchase and acceptance of the project after completion. In Count 2 it sought damages resulting from the negligence of the architect in failing to properly inspect the plumbing installation work, the failure of which was a direct and contributing cause of all damages suffered by the housing authority.
After answering the complaint the defendant architect brought a third party action against Barge & Company, Inc. (Barge) (not involved in this appeal) as general contractor, and against Barge's sub-contractor that installed the plumbing (B & W Mechanical Contractors, Inc.) and the engineering firm on which defendant architect had relied for inspections of the plumbing work (not involved in this appeal). The third party complaint was in three counts, the first being against Barge and B & W Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (B & W), jointly and severally, seeking indemnity and/or contribution with respect to any and all damages which might be awarded against the defendant architect contending therein that the "liability of this defendant could only arise and result from alleged passive negligence of this defendant in failing to discover active negligence of [the third party defendants] in supervising and installing the plumbing work on the project," contending it was entitled to full indemnity. In Count 2 it sought judgment for full indemnity against Barge based upon the general conditions applicable to the work in connection with the contract whereby Barge as contractor assumed an obligation "to save the Owner and Architect harmless and to indemnify the Owner and Architect from every expense, liability or payment ... arising out of or suffered through any act or omission of the contractor or any subcontractor ..." As to Count 3, we will not set it forth here as it was against the other third party defendant (engineering firm) which had assumed responsibility for the performance of the services with reference to inspection of the plumbing.
After substantial discovery had been completed, B & W moved for summary judgment in its favor as to the defendant architect's claims for contribution and indemnity arguing that the absence of a direct contractual relationship between it and the architect barred the architect's claims for contribution and indemnity. The trial court granted this motion in full, holding that there existed no duty of B & W which would provide a basis for the architect's claims for contribution and indemnity, that is, that any liability of B & W runs only to the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta or other intermediary contractors or others in the contractual chain and the third party claim of the architectural firm is not appropriate, citing Smith, Kline & French Laboratories v. Just, 126 Ga.App. 643, 649, 191 S.E.2d 632, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alr Oglethorpe, LLC v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co.
...indemnity against a party whose conduct is alleged to be the proximate cause of the injury."); Jova/Daniels/Busby v. B&W Mechanical Contractors , 167 Ga. App. 551, 553, 307 S.E.2d 97 (1983) (same). So, the investors argue, Coleman Talley, the passive tortfeasor, has a right of indemnity aga......
-
Davis v. Glaze, s. 74126
...those seeking to distinguish between active and passive negligence, are ordinarily for the jury. Jova/Daniels/Busby v. B & W Mech. Contractors, 167 Ga.App. 551, 307 S.E.2d 97 (1985); Peacock Constr. Co. v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 121 Ga.App. 711, 175 S.E.2d 116 (1970). The evidence in the ......
-
Gilbert v. CSX Transp., Inc., APAC-GEORGI
...251) [1980], reversing in part Coleman v. Clark, 154 Ga.App. 188 (267 S.E.2d 824) [1980]." Jova/Daniels/Busby, Inc. v. B & W Mech. Contractors, 167 Ga.App. 551, 553, 307 S.E.2d 97 (1983). We are unable to agree with CSX that its alleged negligence in sending Gilbert to the APAC plant in a t......
-
Olympia Services, Inc. v. Sherwin Williams Co.
...Colt Indus. Operating Corp. v. Coleman, 246 Ga. 559, 560, 272 S.E.2d 251 (1980); followed Jova/Daniels/Busby, Inc. v. B & W Mechanical, etc., 167 Ga.App. 551, 553, 307 S.E.2d 97 (1983). As to foreseeability creating concurrent proximate cause, this Court in Peacock Constr. Co. v. Montgomery......