Gibson v. Tim's Crane & Rigging, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gibson v. Tim's Crane & Rigging, Inc.

609 S.E.2d 203, 271 Ga. App. 277, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 172, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 23

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 14, 2005

DocketA03A2335

StatusPublished

This text of 609 S.E.2d 203 (Gibson v. Tim's Crane & Rigging, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gibson v. Tim's Crane & Rigging, Inc., 609 S.E.2d 203, 271 Ga. App. 277, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 172, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 23 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Ruffin, Chief Judge.

In Gibson v. Tim’s Crane & Rigging, Inc.,1 we held, inter alia, that issues of fact remained regarding whether a crane operator who [278]*278worked for Tim’s Crane was a “borrowed servant” of the general contractor. Although the contract between Tim’s Crane and the general contractor designated the crane operator as a borrowed servant, we found from the evidence that the operator had special skills and exercised independent judgment, which created a question of fact regarding whether he could abdicate complete control to the general contractor.² The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding that the contract was dispositive.³ Accordingly, we vacate Division 1 of our earlier opinion and adopt the judgment of the Supreme Court as our own. Division 2 of our opinion was affirmed by the Supreme Court and therefore remains in effect.

Decided January 14, 2005. Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman, Brent J. Savage, Christopher D. Britt, Kathryn H. Pinckney, for appellant. Oliver, Maner & Gray, Patricia T. Paul, Jeffery L. Arnold, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ruffin, Chief Judge.

In Gibson v. Tim’s Crane & Rigging, Inc.,1 we held, inter alia, that issues of fact remained regarding whether a crane operator who [278]*278worked for Tim’s Crane was a “borrowed servant” of the general contractor. Although the contract between Tim’s Crane and the general contractor designated the crane operator as a borrowed servant, we found from the evidence that the operator had special skills and exercised independent judgment, which created a question of fact regarding whether he could abdicate complete control to the general contractor.² The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding that the contract was dispositive.³ Accordingly, we vacate Division 1 of our earlier opinion and adopt the judgment of the Supreme Court as our own. Division 2 of our opinion was affirmed by the Supreme Court and therefore remains in effect.

Decided January 14, 2005. Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman, Brent J. Savage, Christopher D. Britt, Kathryn H. Pinckney, for appellant. Oliver, Maner & Gray, Patricia T. Paul, Jeffery L. Arnold, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 S.E.2d 203, 271 Ga. App. 277, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 172, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-tims-crane-rigging-inc-gactapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack