Crider v. Denney
Crider v. Denney
Opinion of the Court
On June 29,1972, John Crider died as the result of a fall from a beam which occurred the previous day while he was working on a building being constructed by J. F. Denney Construction Company, Inc. The State Board of Workmen’s Compensation made an award of compensation to Mrs. Crider for the death. She then brought the present wrongful death action against J. Frank Denney, individually, alleging that it was his duty as president of the corporation to see that safety rules, regulations and statutes governing the work were complied with, and that he negligently failed to provide reasonable safety equipment for plaintiffs husband. Defendant answered and asserted, inter alia, that Crider’s death resulted from his own negligence and that he had assumed the risk which resulted in his death. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff appeals. Held:
We affirm. The record shows without dispute that Crider had been employed with the company for seven years prior to his death; that he was a general superintendent and in charge of several different construction jobs, including the one where he was killed; that he was in charge of the means and methods of accomplishing the work and of the personnel performing it; that one of his duties was to see that all the work was performed in a safe manner, and he was responsible for safety on all job sites of which he was the general superintendent; and that he, himself, was the person responsible for safety on the job site where he was killed.
The only evidence as to the occurrence in question is contained in the unchallenged and unrefuted affidavit of Johnny Selman, the foreman on the job site. Selman stated that Crider was his immediate superior, and that "On this day, we were trying to bolt in place a purlin,
It thus clearly appears that Crider knowingly assumed the risks of attempting to crawl across the beams, and summary judgment was properly entered for defendant. See Dekle v. Todd, 132 Ga. App. 156 (207 SE2d 654), which is factually and proeedurally similar, and which is dispositive here.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.