Georgia § 51-2-5 - Liability for negligence of contractor.

§ 51-2-5. Liability for negligence of contractor.

An employer is liable for the negligence of a contractor: When the work is wrongful in itself or, if done in the ordinary manner, would result in a nuisance; If, according to the employer's previous knowledge and experience, the work to be done is in its nature dangerous to others however carefully performed; If the wrongful act is the violation of a duty imposed by express contract upon the employer; If the wrongful act is the violation of a duty imposed by statute; If the employer retains the right to direct or control the time and manner of executing the work or interferes and assumes control so as to create the relation of master and servant or so that an injury results which is traceable to his interference; or If the employer ratifies the unauthorized wrong of the independent contractor. (Civil Code 1895, § 3819; Civil Code 1910, § 4415; Code 1933, § 105-502.) History of section. - The language of this Code section is derived in part from the decision in Atlanta & F.R.R. v. Kimberly, 87 Ga. 161 , 13 S.E. 277 (1891). Cross references. - Liability of principal contractor or subcontractor for injuries suffered by employees engaged in working upon subject matter of contract, § 34-9-8 . Law reviews. - For article surveying torts law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 271 (1982). For annual survey of administrative law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 31 (2004). For annual survey of real property law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 331 (2005). For annual survey of law on labor and employment law, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 181 (2010). For annual survey on construction law, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 63 (2017). For comment criticizing Dekle v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 208 Ga. 254 , 66 S.E.2d 218 (1951), holding defendant not liable for negligence of independent contractor since excavating public street is not inherently dangerous as a matter of law, see 14 Ga. B. J. 228 (1951). For comment on Ellenberg v. Pinkerton's, Inc., 125 Ga. App. 648 , 188 S.E.2d 911 (1972), holding employer defendant may not use independent contractor defense to invasion of privacy suit resulting from actions of investigator working in his behalf, see 9 Ga. St. B. J. 519 (1973). For comment on Aretz v. United States, 604 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1979), discussing federal government's duty of care to employees of an independent contractor, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 1095 (1980).