Sharon Ward v. Directv LLC
342 Ga. App. 69
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Sharon Ward ordered DirecTV service through an authorized dealer (Systems Technology) in Jan. 2013; Systems Technology contracted Premier Vision to perform the installation.
- Sharon claimed she believed installer was a DirecTV representative (branded clothing) and activated service directly with DirecTV.
- After installation, lightning struck near exterior satellite cable; Sharon was injured when lightning traveled through a metal doorknob she touched.
- A later inspection by Mastec revealed the satellite system had not been grounded; Wards sued DirecTV and Mastec (Mastec later dismissed). They did not sue Systems Technology or Premier Vision.
- The Wards moved for summary judgment that DirecTV was liable for subcontractor negligence and that code violations were negligence per se; the trial court denied their motion and granted DirecTV’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DirecTV controlled the subcontractor such that it is vicariously liable (independent contractor vs. employee) | DirecTV exercised substantial control via its contract and Installation Manual (uniform/ID rules, customer contact windows, installation procedures) | Systems Technology/Premier Vision were independent contractors; DirecTV’s guidelines only set results/standards, not day-to-day control | Court held DirecTV did not have the right to control time and manner of work; relationship remained independent contractor and no vicarious liability |
| Whether DirecTV had a nondelegable statutory duty for proper grounding/installation (making it liable for contractor’s statutory breach) | Proper and safe installation (including grounding) is a statutory duty; DirecTV responsible even if delegated | No specific statute or code provision creating a nondelegable duty was identified; Installation Manual and NEC references alone insufficient | Court held plaintiffs failed to identify any specific statute imposing a nondelegable duty; summary judgment for DirecTV affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., 339 Ga. App. 638 (discussing de novo review of summary judgment)
- Royal v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 333 Ga. App. 881 (test for right to control time, manner, methods)
- RBF Holding Co. v. Williamson, 260 Ga. 526 (right to control standard for employee vs. independent contractor)
- Ledbetter v. Delight Wholesale Co., 191 Ga. App. 64 (presumption of independent contractor where contract so states)
- Webb v. Wright, 103 Ga. App. 776 (distinguishing control over results from control over manner)
- McKee Foods Corp. v. Lawrence, 310 Ga. App. 122 (contractual guidelines vs. day-to-day control)
- Perry v. Georgia Power Co., 278 Ga. App. 759 (similar independent-contractor analysis)
- Benson-Jones v. Sysco Food Servs. of Atlanta LLC, 287 Ga. App. 579 (statutory-duty exception to independent-contractor rule requires specific statutory breach)
- Lopez v. El Palmer Taxi, Inc., 297 Ga. App. 121 (branding alone does not convert independent contractor to employee)