Independent Contractor Not Liable for Plaintiff's Injuries

Darlene B. Leaks v. Jan Co. Central, Inc., Diversified Commercial Builders, Inc., and David Kelly Contracting, Inc.,
Civil Action File No. 2008EV004450E, Fulton State Court
Ruling: Court granted Defendant David Kelly Contracting’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Date:  May 16, 2011

Summary:  On March 27, 2007, the Plaintiff allegedly injured herself when she fell while trying to get out of a defective chair at a Burger King restaurant located in downtown Atlanta. The Plaintiff sued three separate defendants: (1) Jan Co. Central, Inc., the owner and operator of the Broad Street Burger King; (2) Diversified Commercial Builders, Inc., the contractor hired by Jan Co. to renovate the Burger King and (3) David Kelly Contracting, the subcontractor hired by Diversified to perform the carpentry portions of the renovations of the Burger King, including the removal and replacement of tabletops and seating.

Defendant David Kelly Contracting, represented by Levy Pruett Cullen, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that its work on the chair where the Plaintiff allegedly fell was performed without negligence, pursuant to specific instructions by its employer, Diversified, and paid for and accepted by Diversified over seven months prior to Plaintiff’s alleged fall.

Georgia’s “Acceptance Doctrine” generally provides that where a contractor who does not hold itself out as an expert in the design work, performs its work without negligence, and the work is approved and accepted by the owner or the one who contracted for the work on the owner’s behalf, the contractor is not liable for injuries resulting from the defective design of the work. Hollis & Spann, Inc. V. Hopkins, 301 Ga. App. 29, 31 (2009). The exceptions for inherently or intrinsically dangerous work, for nuisances per se, and for work so negligently defective as to be imminently dangerous to third persons, only apply in cases where the contractor is guilty of negligence in the performance of its work. [David Allen Co. v. Benton, 260 GA. 557, 558 (1990).]

The Court found that the evidence was undisputed that the work performed by Defendant David Kelly Contracting on the chair where Plaintiff allegedly fell was performed without negligence, was performed pursuant to specific instructions by its employer, Diversified, and was paid for and accepted by Diversified over seven months prior to Plaintiff’s alleged fall.  Consequently, the Court found that any recovery from the Defendant David Kelly Contracting was barred by the Acceptance Doctrine.

Defense Verdict for Georgia DOT in GA 400 Crossover Accident

Hawa v. DOT, State Court of Fulton County
Civil Action File No. 04VS064364C
Defense Verdict

The Plaintiff suffered serious leg and pelvic injuries when a vehicle left the northbound lanes of Georgia 400, crossed the grassed median and collided with the Plaintiff and several other southbound vehicles. Plaintiff sued the Georgia Department of Transportation alleging the negligent design of Georgia 400. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged the DOT should have installed guardrail or concrete barriers to prevent vehicles from crossing over the grass median which separated northbound traffic or Georgia 400 from southbound traffic. In support of this argument, the Plaintiff argued that most of the length of Georgia 400 between 85 and 285 had some type of barrier protection in the median. The last pretrial demand to DOT was $950,000.

We argued that the 44-foot wide median satisfied all engineering standards and guidelines in place at the time SR 400 was designed and constructed. Moreover, the DOT contended that a wide median gave drivers who left the paved surface of the roadway an opportunity to regain control and re-enter the travel way. By contrast, adding a guardrail or concrete barrier would be placing an additional hazard closer to the road so that drivers who left the roadway would be more likely to strike the barrier and could be deflected back into traffic. DOT further asserted that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the other driver who left the northbound lanes of Georgia 400 and crossed the grass median without ever touching his brakes. The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of DOT, but against the Estate of Moses King, the errant driver, for $2,700,000.