Michael Becker (Atlanta, GA) (Negligence/Property Damage) obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of a defendant plumbing company in the State Court of Forsyth County, Georgia.
The Plaintiffs sought over $250,000.00 in damages, plus attorney’s fees, relating to allegedly negligent plumbing performed during a home remodel. Subcontractors not named as defendants in the suit installed a manifold in the master bathroom. The following night, excessive water pressure caused a factory-installed temporary plastic cap to blow off, resulting in significant water damage. Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants knew or should have known that the house water pressure exceeded code and turned the water off prior to leaving. However, Plaintiffs’ expert testified that an undersized and failed expansion tank plumbed to the water heaters, all of which pre-dated the Plaintiffs purchase of the residence, caused the excessive pressure. None of the named Defendants or the unnamed subcontractors were engaged or asked to perform any inspections or repairs relating to the water heaters, expansion tank, or water pressure.
At Summary Judgment, Defendants argued that the subcontractors were independent contractors and therefore Defendants were not liable for their negligence. Defendants further argued that Georgia law does not impose a duty upon plumbers to inspect, repair, or warn beyond the work for which they are hired. Plaintiffs argued in response that Defendants were liable based upon statutory exceptions imposing liability where the work is wrongful in itself and where the wrongful conduct violates a duty imposed by an express contract. As to the first argument, Defendants replied that the exception only applies when the contract itself calls for wrongful conduct, not when an independent contractor commits a wrongful act beyond the terms of the contract. As to the second argument, Defendants replied that the exception only applies where the contract contains an express provision that the principal will be liable for the conduct of its independent contractors. The only contract in the record, Defendants argued, contained no such provision, and further, the parties executed it after the occurrence and water damage at issue, so it did not govern the previous work.
The Court agreed and granted Summary Judgment to the Defendants.