Court Opinion

ID: 9610990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:50:27.118535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:07.932906
License: Public Domain

Jordan, Justice,
concurring specially.
I agree with the result in this case, although I fail to see how the majority could have reached it without even mentioning the nature of the relationship between McElhenney and Home Transportation. The contract between McElhenney and Home Transportation used the words "independent contractor” to describe their relationship, and both appellate courts writing on this case have recited this fact at the outset of their opinions.
The case of Blair v. Smith, 201 Ga. 747 (41 SE2d 133) (1947) plainly states that general contractors who hire independent contractors for part of their work are not responsible for providing workers’ compensation coverage for employees of the independent contractor. Accord, Mosley v. George A. Fuller Co., 250 F2d 686 (5th Cir. 1957); BLI Const. Co. v. Knowles, 123 Ga. App. 588 (181 SE2d879) (1971); Irving v. Home Acc. Ins. Co., 36 Ga. App. 551 (137 SE 105) (1926); Zurich General Acc. &c. Ins. Co. v. Lee, 36 Ga. App. 248 (136 SE 173) (1926). It must be remembered that B lair was decided under the same Code Ann. § 114-112 we consider today with the exception of the 1969 amendment which provided that employees denied coverage as a result of Code Ann. § 114-107 may sue the principal contractor directly if entitled.
There is also authority distinguishing Blair, namely Jackson v. J. B. Rush Const. Co., 134 Ga. App. 445 (214 SE2d 710) (1975), the difference relied on being that in *168Blair, plaintiff Smith was compensated by his immediate employer prior to suing Blair in tort, and not by Blair itself as opposed to. the situation here and in Jackson. However, Jackson does not discuss, and nowhere is it indicated as being relevant, the nature of the relationship between the immediate employer and the general contractor — the very essence of the Blair opinion.
I think the court is correct in expanding the meaning of the word "subcontractor” to include independent contractors, though accomplishing this sub silentio. However, in so doing I respectfully submit that the majority should have overruled Blair v. Smith, supra, to avoid confusion in the future. For this reason, I concur in the judgment only.