Talmage v. Tift
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action for damages; from Tift superior court—'Judge Bye. August 9, 1919. Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.
1. Where laborers employed by a contractor are subject to the control of the employer and may be discharged by the latter, the contractor is, as respects the employment and control of the laborers, not an independent contractor. 14 R. C. L. 68.
2. In a suit to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while employed as a laborer to work about a mill, where it appears from the evidence that the defendant was the owner of the mill, which was located upon his premises and, under a contract made by the defendant with another person, was operated by the latter,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Bentley v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
- Wood v. Brunswick Pulp & Paper Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- Benson-Jones v. Sysco Food Services of Atlanta, LLCCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2007
- Carruthers v. City of HawkinsvilleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
- Piggly Wiggly Southern, Inc. v. Hercules, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.