KEVIN SINYARD v. PIEDMONT HOSPITAL, INC.
A21A1426
| Ga. Ct. App. | Mar 10, 2022Background
- Kevin Sinyard, a pipefitter (1975–1989), worked intermittently for many contractors at Georgia Power (Scherer, Vogtle, Branch, McDonough), Ford’s Hapeville plant, and Piedmont Hospital; diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in 2014 and sued all three owners for premises liability based on asbestos exposure.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for all three defendants; Sinyards appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part for Georgia Power, reversed for Ford, and affirmed for Piedmont.
- Georgia Power was majority owner and contractually responsible for planning/design/construction of new Units at Scherer and Vogtle; it trained and equipped its own employees about asbestos but did not provide respirators or specific warnings to outside pipefitters or contractors.
- Ford and Piedmont both knew asbestos was present in their facilities and had internal awareness; Ford had employee policies but did not warn outside contractors; Piedmont received state guidance to post warnings and keep records but did not do so.
- Sinyard’s training and knowledge were limited: apprenticeship instruction emphasized paper masks and wetting insulation; he denied formal training about asbestos cancer risks and testified he rarely used respirators and did not read union newsletters. McKenney’s (Sinyard’s contractor at Piedmont) acknowledged industry awareness of asbestos and available procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory-employer immunity (Georgia Power new Units) | Georgia Power not immune for injuries on its premises | Georgia Power was a contractor/statutory employer for new-Unit construction | Georgia Power entitled to immunity for work on new Units (affirmed) |
| Owner's duty based on superior knowledge (Georgia Power) | Georgia Power had superior knowledge and owed a duty/warning | Sinyard had equal knowledge of asbestos risks | Material fact issue; summary judgment reversed in part—jury must decide knowledge |
| Hired-worker exception (Georgia Power) | Exception shouldn't bar duty because Sinyard lacked actual notice of specific danger | Exception applies to hired workers on obviously dangerous sites | Question of fact on Sinyard's knowledge precludes summary judgment; exception not resolved as matter of law |
| Relinquishment of possession/control (Georgia Power & Ford) | Owners retained control so duty remained | Owners relinquished possession/control to contractors—no duty | Genuine fact issues exist whether owners relinquished control; summary judgment improper |
| Causation / exposure to defendants' asbestos (Georgia Power) | Sinyard identified brands, work tasks, and dusty conditions showing exposure to defendants' products | Defendants: evidence is speculative—no proof plaintiff was near defendants' asbestos products | Court: Sinyard’s and coworkers’ testimony creates triable issue on exposure; summary judgment denied on causation |
| Statute of repose (Georgia Power) | Repose should not bar claim because owner retained possession/control | Claims time-barred after 8 years from substantial completion | Repose defense depends on possession/control; fact issue prevents summary judgment |
| Piedmont — owner duty vs. contractor knowledge | Piedmont had superior knowledge and failed to warn Sinyard | McKenney’s (contractor) had equal knowledge and could protect its workers | Summary judgment for Piedmont affirmed: McKenney’s had equal knowledge, discharging Piedmont’s duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. Georgia Power Co., 252 Ga. 404 (Ga. 1984) (statutory-employer doctrine and workers’ compensation immunity)
- Yoho v. Ringier of Am., Inc., 263 Ga. 338 (Ga. 1993) (only a contractor can be a statutory employer)
- Holton v. Ga. Power, 228 Ga. App. 135 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997) (owner-as-contractor can be statutory employer; immunity)
- McClure v. Equitable Real Estate Inv. Mgmt., Inc., 195 Ga. App. 54 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990) (relinquishment of possession/control doctrine)
- Travis v. Quiktrip Corp., 339 Ga. App. 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016) (owner’s liability grounded in superior knowledge of specific hazard)
- Fouch v. Bicknell Supply Co., 326 Ga. App. 863 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishing general vs. specific knowledge for asbestos-type hazards)
- Hoffman v. AC&S, Inc., 248 Ga. App. 608 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001) (proof required to show plaintiff’s proximity to defendant’s asbestos products)
- Douberly v. Okefenokee Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 146 Ga. App. 568 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978) (independent contractor’s full knowledge can discharge landowner’s duty)
- Ramcke v. Ga. Power Co., 306 Ga. App. 736 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (distinguishing when owner has not undertaken contractual obligations)
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (Ga. 1997) (relative-knowledge jury issues in duty questions)