Webb v. Wright
| Decision Date | 08 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 38800,38800,3 |
| Citation | 120 S.E.2d 806,103 Ga.App. 776 |
| Parties | L. E. WEBB v. S. B. WRIGHT et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where one has a contract with the owner of a house for the remodeling thereof and contracts with another, who exercises an independent business, for the manufacture and installation of a set of steps according to specifications supplied, for a stipulated sum, but retains no control or right to control the time or manner of executing the work, though having the right to require results in conformity with the contract and specifications, there is no relation of master and servant or of principal and agent between such contractors.
2. A suit for damages caused by the faulty installation of a set of steps by a subcontractor cannot be maintained against the main contractor, the facts not being sufficient to bring the case within any of the provisions of Code § 105-502, these being the only conditions under which such a suit can be maintained against the main contractor.
3. Where the main contractors were residents of Baldwin County and suit was filed there against them and a subcontractor who was a resident of Bibb County and where, because of the absence of any relationship between them of master and servant or of principal and agent and where none of the conditions under which the main contractors could be held liable for a tort of the subcontractor were shown by the evidence, the suit was not maintainable against the main contractor, and it follows that the Superior Court of Baldwin County had no jurisdiction of the subcontractor.
Samuel B. Wright brought suit in the Superior Court of Baldwin County seeking the recovery of damages on account of certain injuries alleged to have been sustained when a set of iron steps, installed by L. E. Webb in connection with the remodeling of a house, fell, throwing him to the ground. In his petition Wright alleged that a contract had been entered into with E. J. Smith & Sons, a partnership with all partners residing in Baldwin County, for the remodeling of the house; that E. J. Smith & Sons had employed L. E. Webb, trading as B & W Iron Works, a resident of Bibb County, to manufacture and install iron steps from the back porch to the ground; that Webb, as agent of E. J. Smith & Sons, did manufacture and install the steps, but in such a negligent manner as to cause him to fall and be injured when, on the morning following the installation of the steps and when he was leaving the house, he stepped on the top step and the steps fell to the ground.
Webb filed a plea to the jurisdiction, contending that his relationship to the main contractor, E. J. Smith & Sons, was not that of servant of agent, but was that of independent contractor or subcontractor, and that since he was a resident of Bibb County, the superior court of that county and not that of Baldwin County, had jurisdiction of any action against him. The issue made by his plea to the jurisdiction came on for a separate trial at which the evidence disclosed the following undisputed facts:
The plaintiff, negotiating Chester B. Danuser, who was one of the partners in E. J. Smith & Sons, has entered into a contract on behalf of his mother-in-law with the partnership for the remodeling of her house located in Milledgeville. When the remodeling had progressed almost to a completion, Wright informed Danuser that his mother-in-law, Mrs. Beeson, desired to have iron steps installed from the back porch to the ground, and Danuser, saying that he could get a company engaged in that line of business to manufacture and install the steps, proceeded to make measurements and prepare sketches and specifications by which the steps could be manufactured. He took the sketch, or drawing, with specifications thereon, to Macon for the purpose of engaging Webb to do the job. Webb was not available, but Danuser showed the drawing to his wife, explained it to her and left it with her, asking that she have her husband to proceed with the manufacture and installation. The drawing showed the dimensions of the steps and the color they were to be painted. No other or further instructions were ever given by E. J. Smith & Sons to Webb, and nothing was said by Danuser in his contacts with Webb or his wife by which any right to control the time, method or manner of manufacturing or installing the steps was reserved, though a 'change order' might have been given. In fact, neither Danuser nor any other member of the partnership of E. J. Smith & Sons ever saw the steps or had any contact with Webb from the time Danuser arranged with him, through his wife, for their manufacture and installation until after Webb had placed or installed them and the plaintiff had fallen therefrom, when Danuser telephoned Webb in Macon and asked him to come or send over and complete the installation.
When Webb had completed the manufacture and painting of the steps at his shop in Macon, he and two men who were in his employ and on his payroll loaded the steps on his truck and took them to the home of Mrs. Beeson in Milledgeville for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Prance
...repair of plaintiff's boat under the evidence presented. See Yearwood v. Peabody, 45 Ga.App. 451(1), 164 S.E. 901; Webb v. Wright, 103 Ga.App. 776(1), 779-780, 120 S.E.2d 806. Compare Mount v. Southern R. Co., 42 Ga.App. 546, 550, 156 S.E. 701. (b) We next discuss the award of bad faith and......
-
Byrd v. Moore Ford Co., 42934
...79 S.E.2d 409; Scoggins v. Hill, 90 Ga.App. 283(2), 82 S.E.2d 739; Selman v. Davis, 94 Ga.App. 450, 95 S.E.2d 44; Webb v. Wright, 103 Ga.App. 776, 120 S.E.2d 806; Woods v. Universal C.IT. Credit Corporation, 110 Ga.App. 394(8), 138 S.E.2d 593; Charles S. Martin Distributing Company, Incorpo......
-
Ward v. DirecTV LLC.
...is distinguishable from "the right merely to require certain definite results conformity with the contract[.]" Webb v. Wright , 103 Ga.App. 776, 779 (1), 120 S.E.2d 806 (1961). The written agreement between DirecTV and Systems Technology specifically classifies the latter's status as an "in......
- Southeastern Liquid Fertilizer Co. v. Chapman, 38851