Hutcheson v. Eastern Engineering Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hutcheson v. Eastern Engineering Company

209 S.E.2d 680, 132 Ga. App. 885, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1859

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 25, 1974

Docket49642

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 S.E.2d 680 (Hutcheson v. Eastern Engineering Company) 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

Hutcheson v. Eastern Engineering Company, 209 S.E.2d 680, 132 Ga. App. 885, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1859 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Judge.

The appellant plaintiff, whose husband sustained fatal injuries during the construction of a building, sued the owner, the general contractor and Eastern Engineering Company, the job architect and engineer. Eastern had prepared the plans and specifications, including open hatchways to be used as an elevator shaft by the owner in hoisting machinery from one floor to another, but it did not furnish any of such equipment nor make any recommendations with respect to the type of equipment or how it was to be used. Hutcheson, an employee of a subcontractor, and another employee were engaged in lifting a heavy load of asbestos siding from the fourth to the sixth floor via á hoist and pulley operated on signal by another workman on another floor. The load stuck; Hutcheson, attempting to pull it loose walked between it and the opening; the signal was given at about the same time and the load swung over and knocked Hutcheson into the shaft.

The trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant architect was proper. The only viable allegation of negligence was faulty design in that the guardrails called for in the specifications were removable, without provision to keep a load on the floor from swinging, or providing a low bumper rail as a *886 minimum protection to persons working around the hole. However, Eastern did not furnish the equipment, it did not design the shaft for construction purposes, and it did not have any control over the method in which it was being used by the subcontractor. It did provide for guardrails, and the guardrails were not removed by it. The mere fact that they perhaps were necessarily removed if the particular load being transported was to go through the hatchway would not constitute negligence on its part, it having no responsibility so far as the record shows for providing for the transportation of building materials in the course of construction.

Argued September 5, 1974 Decided September 25, 1974 Rehearing denied October 11, 1974 Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James T. McDonald, Jr., John F. Sacka, for appellant. M. D. McLendon, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Stolz, J., concur.

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

Deen, Judge.

The appellant plaintiff, whose husband sustained fatal injuries during the construction of a building, sued the owner, the general contractor and Eastern Engineering Company, the job architect and engineer. Eastern had prepared the plans and specifications, including open hatchways to be used as an elevator shaft by the owner in hoisting machinery from one floor to another, but it did not furnish any of such equipment nor make any recommendations with respect to the type of equipment or how it was to be used. Hutcheson, an employee of a subcontractor, and another employee were engaged in lifting a heavy load of asbestos siding from the fourth to the sixth floor via á hoist and pulley operated on signal by another workman on another floor. The load stuck; Hutcheson, attempting to pull it loose walked between it and the opening; the signal was given at about the same time and the load swung over and knocked Hutcheson into the shaft.

The trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant architect was proper. The only viable allegation of negligence was faulty design in that the guardrails called for in the specifications were removable, without provision to keep a load on the floor from swinging, or providing a low bumper rail as a *886 minimum protection to persons working around the hole. However, Eastern did not furnish the equipment, it did not design the shaft for construction purposes, and it did not have any control over the method in which it was being used by the subcontractor. It did provide for guardrails, and the guardrails were not removed by it. The mere fact that they perhaps were necessarily removed if the particular load being transported was to go through the hatchway would not constitute negligence on its part, it having no responsibility so far as the record shows for providing for the transportation of building materials in the course of construction.

Argued September 5, 1974 Decided September 25, 1974 Rehearing denied October 11, 1974 Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James T. McDonald, Jr., John F. Sacka, for appellant. M. D. McLendon, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Stolz, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 S.E.2d 680, 132 Ga. App. 885, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutcheson-v-eastern-engineering-company-gactapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack