Noxon Rug Mills, Inc. v. Smith, s. 22575
| Decision Date | 08 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 22575,22576,s. 22575 |
| Parties | NOXON RUG MILLS, INC. v. Edgar L. SMITH. David L. THOMASON et al. v. Edgar L. SMITH. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Pittman & Kinney, Dalton, for plaintiff in error, Noxon Rug Mills, inc.
Mitchell & Mitchell, Dalton, for plaintiffs in error, Thomason et al.
McCamy, Minor, Vining & Phillips, Dalton, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
These cases are here on certiorari to the Court of Appeals, 109 Ga.App. 724, 137 S.E.2d 322. Noxon Rug Mills, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Noxon), brought a suit for damages against Edgar L. Smith and David L. Thomason and Thomas F. Hackney d/b/a Thomason & Hackney (hereinafter referred to as Smith and Thomason respectively). For a complete statement of the pleadings and evidence see the Court of Appeals' opinion, supra. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Noxon against Smith (thus also finding for Thomason). Smith moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, with which we are not here concerned, and for a new trial which was later amended by adding three special grounds. The trial judge overruled the motion for new trial and the Court of Appeals reversed, based on special ground 3. The correctness of this ruling is the sole question presented to this court for review.
The trial judge after instructing the jury that Smith would not be responsible for the torts of Thomason, if acting as an independent contractor, charged three exceptions to this rule (contained in Code § 105-502) which he considered to be applicable, the pertinent exception being: 'If according to previous knowledge and experience, the work to be done is in its nature dangerous to others, however carefully performed * * *.' Then in response to a written request to charge made by Smith the trial judge charged that if the defendant Thomason were an independent contractor the efendant Smith could not be liable for the negligence of the defendant Thomason, 'unless, according to previous knowledge and experience of Smith, the work done by the independent contractor was in itself dangerous to others no matter how carefully performed * * *' The third special ground complained that the charge was 'erroneous, harmful and injurious to him [the defendant Smith] because there is no evidence or pleadings which authorize the jury to find: (a) That according to his previous knowledge and experience, the work to be done is in its nature dangerous to others, however carefully performed * * *' In passing on this ground, the Court of Appeals ruled: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lumpkin v. State Highway Dept., 41850
...S.E. 650), only the opposite party can urge it as error, for invited error is harmless as to him who invites it. Noxon Rug Mills, Inc. v. Smith, 220 Ga. 291, 293, 138 S.E.2d 569. The allegation that it sought to condemn access rights was an invitation by the condemnor to the court to includ......
-
Whitaker v. Harvell-Kilgore Corporation
...then the manufacturer is liable. Smith v. Noxon Rug Mills, Inc., 109 Ga. App. 724, 137 S.E.2d 322, (reversed on other ground) 220 Ga. 291, 138 S.E.2d 569. In summary, we affirm the District Court on the issues of express and implied warranties and strict tort liability. We reverse the Distr......
-
Citizen and Southern Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 53749
...One cannot complain of the giving of a charge that was specifically requested by the complaining party. Noxon Rug Mills, Inc. v. Smith, 220 Ga. 291, 293, 138 S.E.2d 569; Drum v. Shirey, 106 Ga.App. 699(2), 128 S.E.2d 92. 4. The court did charge as to an accord and satisfaction and that if t......
-
McGarr v. McGarr
...But appellant requested this portion of the charge, and thus cannot complain of any error induced by it. Noxon Rug Mills, Inc. v. Smith, 220 Ga. 291, 138 S.E.2d 569 (1964). 2. Appellee testified over objection that she had heard that appellant was engaging "in friendships of younger women."......