Stafford Enterprises, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 64373
| Decision Date | 06 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 64373,64373 |
| Citation | 299 S.E.2d 390,164 Ga.App. 646 |
| Parties | STAFFORD ENTERPRISES, INC. v. AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
On motion for rehearing, Ga.App., 297 S.E.2d 307, movant Stafford argues that evidence on the former appearance of this case shows the deceased was not an employee of Stafford but was an employee of Cyanamid. Thus, it is contended Cyanamid can not recover under the terms of the indemnity agreement since the action is based on Cyanamid's sole negligence. See e.g., Code Ann. § 20-504(b) (Code § 20-504; as amended Ga.L.1970, p. 441).
Stafford's argument might have merit if this were the first appeal of this case. However, this case has already been appealed to this court, American Cyanamid Co. v. Ring, 158 Ga.App. 525, 281 S.E.2d 247, certioraried to the Supreme Court, American Cyanamid Co. v. Ring, 248 Ga. 673, 286 S.E.2d 1, which reversed our decision upholding the trial court, and then ruled upon on remand by this court, American Cyanamid Co. v. Ring, et al., 161 Ga.App. 317, 289 S.E.2d 823.
Looking at this case from an historical perspective, we find that Cyanamid moved for a directed verdict against Stafford contending that under the terms of the indemnity agreement Stafford as third party defendant was liable to it for any damages recovered by the plaintiff. The trial judge denied this motion as well as the subsequent motion for judgment n.o.v. This court affirmed despite assertions as to the error of this decision by several enumerations of error raised by Cyanamid. See American Cyanamid Co. v. Ring, 158 Ga.App. 525, 527(2), 281 S.E.2d 247, supra.
The Supreme Court then reversed this court's decision and held the indemnity contract was in effect. No direction was given other than judgment reversed. On remand to this court, the judgment denying the defendant Cyanamid's motion for judgment n.o.v. was reversed without either specification or direction.
As we endeavored to point out in the main opinion, it is therefore clear that the issues sought to be raised now concerning the applicability of the indemnity agreement and the evidence relevant thereto were before both our appellate courts. Our decision's rather extensive recitation of the principles of sole negligence under the terms of a contract of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kent v. WHITE, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC
...491 S.E.2d 427 (1997); Palm Restaurant of Ga. v. Prakas, 192 Ga.App. 74, 76, 383 S.E.2d 584 (1989); Stafford Enterprises v. American Cyanamid Co., 164 Ga.App. 646, 650, 299 S.E.2d 390 (1982). To charge the jury on the law, and even the facts, as affirmed on appeal is not reversible error wh......
-
Kent v. AO WHITE
...491 S.E.2d 427 (1997); Palm Restaurant of Ga. v. Prakas, 192 Ga.App. 74, 76, 383 S.E.2d 584 (1989); Stafford Enterprises v. American Cyanamid Co., 164 Ga.App. 646, 650, 299 S.E.2d 390 (1982). To charge the jury on the law, and even the facts, as affirmed on appeal is not reversible error wh......
-
Jiffy Store, Inc. v. Bishop
...that judgment be entered for defendant. See Stafford Enterprises v. American Cyanamid Co., 164 Ga.App. 646, 650, 297 S.E.2d 307, 299 S.E.2d 390 (1982). 2. In view of our ruling in Division 1, the remaining enumerations of error need not be Judgment reversed with direction. BANKE, P.J., and ......