Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 56634,56634 |
| Citation | 147 Ga.App. 872,250 S.E.2d 580 |
| Parties | REDWING CARRIERS, INC. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lee & Clark, Steven E. Scheer, Savannah, for appellant.
Bouhan, Williams & Levy, James M. Thomas, Randall K. Bart, Paul W. Painter, Jr., Savannah, for appellee.
This appeal arises out of third-party proceedings maturing below subsequent to our review of the main action in Redwing Carriers v. Knight, 143 Ga.App. 668, 239 S.E.2d 686 (1977). Knight, an employee at the Johns-Manville plant, was showered with molten asphalt from a hose which burst while he was assisting Redwing's employee in attempting to pump the asphalt from Redwing's tanker through flexible hoses into the plant's storage tank. We affirmed Knight's recovery from Redwing, and the latter pursued third-party claims against Travelers Insurance Company and others, contending as to Travelers that it, as the general liability insurer of Johns-Manville, was liable over to Redwing because of its concurring negligence in conducting safety inspections at the plant. The trial court granted summary judgment to Travelers, and Redwing appeals. Our view is that Travelers has not carried its summary judgment burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Consequently we reverse.
Travelers contends that in order to be subjected to liability for negligent safety inspections under the theory of recovery articulated in Sims v. American Cas. Co., 131 Ga.App. 461, 206 S.E.2d 121 (1974), three elements must appear: (1) that it inspected the area where the mishap occurred; (2) that the negligent inspection was causally related to plaintiff's injuries; and (3) that the insured relied upon the inspection. It is urged that these matters have been disproven so that the grant of summary judgment was proper.
But assuming for the purpose of argument that Travelers' analysis of the theory is correct, we find that an assumption basic to Travelers' contentions that it was solely Redwing's defective equipment or dangerous procedures which were to blame is not demanded by the record. As our previous opinion indicates, a possible concurring cause of the malfunction was the failure of Johns-Manville to clear the asphalt remaining after prior deliveries from the flexible hoses to its tank, a failing which, given the propensity of molten...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Clark
...224 S.E.2d 55 (1976); Winslett v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 141 Ga.App. 143, 232 S.E.2d 638 (1977); Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 147 Ga.App. 872, 250 S.E.2d 580 (1978); St. Paul Fire, etc., Ins. Co. v. Davidson, 148 Ga.App. 82, 251 S.E.2d 32 (1978); Newton v. Liberty Mut. In......
-
City of Atlanta v. Brookins
... ... Oak Ridge Village, Inc. v. La Siesta Mobile Home Park, 130 Ga.App. 539, 540(1), ... ...
-
Huggins v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...(1979); St. Paul Fire, etc., Ins. Co. v. Davidson, 148 Ga.App. 82, 251 S.E.2d 32 (1978), cert. den.; Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 147 Ga.App. 872, 250 S.E.2d 580 (1978); Winslett v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 141 Ga.App. 143, 232 S.E.2d 638 (1977); Pa. Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v......
-
Newton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...reliance of the insured (plaintiff's employer) upon the inspection was essential to a recovery. Compare Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 147 Ga.App. 872, 250 S.E.2d 580 and Winslett v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 141 Ga.App. 143, 232 S.E.2d 638. The defendant has presented evidenc......