Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brunswick Pulp & Paper Co. v. Dowling
Citations: 140 S.E.2d 912; 111 Ga. App. 123; 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 898Docket: 41041
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; February 2, 1965; Georgia; State Appellate Court
The Court of Appeals of Georgia, in Brunswick Pulp & Paper Company v. Dowling, decided on February 2, 1965, addressed the validity of a petition concerning wrongful death claims. The court found that the trial court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition for two primary reasons: 1. The petition failed to allege sufficient facts indicating that the employer retained the right to direct or control the execution of the work or had interfered in a manner that would create a master-servant relationship. The plaintiff's claim was based on the assertion that the employer's interference led to the injury, but the petition did not provide supporting allegations for this argument. 2. The petition did not establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant. The court noted that while the defendant controlled the electrical system and lighting, this control did not extend to the specifics of the contractor's operations in the area where the incident occurred. The deceased was aware of the dangerous lighting conditions and chose to navigate the area, ultimately falling into a hole not attributed to the defendant. The court concluded that the negligence of the deceased and possibly his fellow employees were the proximate causes of the death, not the defendant's alleged negligence. The court emphasized that if an intervening cause is significant enough to independently account for the injury, the initial negligent act may be deemed too remote. As the petition did not meet the necessary legal standards for a cause of action, the judgment was reversed, and the court did not address further motions related to the trial. Judges Jordan and Russell concurred with the decision.