Court Opinion

ID: 9572495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:42:13.977926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:15.691815
License: Public Domain

Undercofler, Justice,
dissenting.
1. Not all contractors are general (principal) contractors and not all general contractors become statutory employers. Under a workers’ compensation “statutory employer” provision, such as Georgia’s Code Ann. § 114-112, a general contractor may become liable to pay workers’ compensation to independent subcontractors’ employees injured “in or about the premises.” However, it appears it is virtually impossible to define with precision when a general contractor becomes a “statutory employer.” Therefore, it is determined on a case by case basis by the nature of the independent subcontract as it relates to the general contractor’s ordinary undertaking. 1C Larson’s, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 49.12 Thus, if the majority opinion here is holding that general contractors become “statutory employers” for employees injured “in or about the premises” of all his independent subcontractors, I disagree. See Holt v. Travelers Ins. Co., 244 Ga. 857 (262 SE2d 139) (1979).
2. The majority here finds that since the general contractor is a statutory employer and has a potential liability for workers’ compensation to the independent subcontractor’s employee, the general contractor is immune from tort liability to that employee. The majority reasons: “The quid pro quo for the statutory employer’s potential liability is immunity from tort liability.” In my view, it is not potential liability for workers’ compensation which insulates a statutory employer from tort liability but actual liability. Blair v. Smith, 201 Ga. 747 (41 SE2d 133) (1947); Haygood v. Home Transp. Co., 244 Ga. 165 (259 SE2d 429) (1979). Unless the general contractor is required to pay workers’ compensation as a statutory employer there is no quid pro quo and he remains liable in tort for his wrong. Here the general contractor had no actual liability. The subcontractor paid the workers’ comperisation. Thus the majority opinion has gratuitously relieved the general contractor of liability for his tort.
I would not overrule Blair v. Smith, supra. Its judgment is correct that a general contractor who has not been held liable for workers’ compensation may be sued in tort. Blair has stood for thirty-three years unchanged by the legislature and stare decisis compels that we adhere to it.
*502Haygood v. Home Transp. Co., supra, is not support for the majority opinion. In that case the general contractor scheduled Haygood as his employee with his compensation carrier which paid the benefits due.