Soucy v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 17 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 69077,69077 |
| Citation | 172 Ga.App. 501,323 S.E.2d 662 |
| Parties | SOUCY et al. v. ALEXANDER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James H. Webb, Jr., Athens, for appellants.
Michael R. Johnson, Ronald D. Reemsnyder, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant Charles B. Soucy, a sheetrock subcontractor, visited a residential construction site where appellee David Alexander, another subcontractor, was engaged with his two employees in a process known as taping and finishing sheetrock. Soucy had been engaged in the sheetrock trade for about 20 years and had previously employed and trained Alexander. Soucy's ostensible purpose for visiting the site was to determine when Alexander would complete his work, thus enabling Soucy to commence the final sheetrock phase of "texturing" the ceilings. After determining that Alexander would be working on the project for another two days, Soucy voluntarily demonstrated the proper usage of a device known as a "bazooka," which was used for applying sheetrock "mud," or joint compound, which is mixed with water in 5-gallon buckets. After Soucy completed this demonstration, he returned the "bazooka" to the mixing area, near the center of the room, then slipped and fell a few feet from that area.
It is undisputed that small amounts of "mud" are routinely spilled during the process of mixing, taping, and finishing sheetrock and that this substance is quite slippery before it dries. Although Alexander denied knowing that "mud" had been spilled, he conceded that Soucy probably slipped on "mud" which had been spilled by one of his employees during the mixing process. Soucy testified that in training Alexander, he had instructed him that sheetrock "mud" should be picked up as soon as it is spilled and that this is a standard practice in the trade. Alexander stated that his workers would not ordinarily have stopped working to pick up a small amount of spilled "mud" but would have picked up a quantity as large as a "fistful" had its presence been known. There is no evidence that Alexander or any of his employees were aware of the spillage prior to Soucy's fall. It appears that Alexander and his crew had been working in the room no more than 10 minutes prior to the incident.
This action was brought by Soucy and his wife against Alexander to recover damages for the injuries Soucy sustained as a result of the fall. The appeal is from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Alexander. Held:
A building contractor or subcontractor has a duty, in prosecuting his work, to use ordinary care not to cause injuries to others engaged in work on the same premises. Doke v. Dover Elevator Co., 152 Ga.App. 434, 263 S.E.2d 209 (1979). However, just as in any other negligence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keene v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co., 89-2542
...Contracting Co., 143 Fla. 335, 196 So. 690 (1940); Padilla v. Gulf Power Co., 401 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Soucy v. Alexander, 172 Ga.App. 501, 323 S.E.2d 662 (1984); McGeary v. Reed, 105 Ohio App. 111, 151 N.E.2d 789 (1957); Rumsey v. Schollman Bros. Co., 156 Neb. 251, 55 N.W.2d 668......
-
Oliver v. Complements, Ltd.
...for the jury, it may be summarily adjudicated where the plaintiff's knowledge of the risk is clear and palpable." Soucy v. Alexander, 172 Ga.App. 501, 502, 323 S.E.2d 662; accord Harris v. Star Svc. etc. Co., 170 Ga.App. 816, 318 S.E.2d 239; Whirlpool Corp. v. Hurlbut, 166 Ga.App. 95(6), 30......
-
Clive v. Gregory
...both concepts together. Stringer Lumber relies upon Florence v. Knight, 217 Ga.App. 799, 459 S.E.2d 436 (1995), and Soucy v. Alexander, 172 Ga.App. 501, 323 S.E.2d 662 (1984), for the proposition that it cannot be held liable because the Clives had equal or superior knowledge of the lack of......
-
Baker v. Harcon Inc
...omitted.) Id. See OCGA § 51-1-6; Ragsdale Heating, etc. v. Terrell, 245 Ga.App. 866, 867, 539 S.E.2d 199 (2000); Soucy v. Alexander, 172 Ga.App. 501, 502, 323 S.E.2d 662 (1984). But “a breach of such duty will not give rise to liability to a plaintiff who could have avoided injury to himsel......