*1 SHOWS, INC. 42958. HAYES CENTURY Argued 30,1967 Decided October June *2 Ronald. Saveli, L. Woodruff, Williams, & Edward Saveli, Lane Davis, for appellant. Gambrell, Moye Russell, & Killorin, A. Moye, Charles Jr., David A. Handley, appellee. for
Debn, plaintiff Code the Under 105-106 cannot § resulting her action on a tort base from the violation of a duty arising only by reason defendant’s contract with Coosa Inc., Fair unless she right “would have had a of action for injury done independently the contract.” v. Berry, (130 Ga. 838). See Stuart negligence alleged that there was a malfunction in Sky- liner, a device owned and in by the profit defendant under a sharing arrange general and subject
ment in certain aspects of operation latter’s control. 105-501 defendant is not § responsible for torts of an contractor unless the statutory situation comes within the exceptions, one of which is dangerous that where the is in or itself is per duty imposed by formance of a statute it is nondelegable. Of statutory one of requirements (Code course 105-401) is that § occupier where the of land induces others upon to come prem ordinary he must ises exercise premises care to keep safe. generally 'operator’ “It is held that an actually engaged in owner, lessee, a or place amusement, conduct of whether distinguished from the owner concessionaire, as place premises to an merely amusement who leases the entire resulting injuries patrons operator, liability cannot avoid dangerous premises, from the or or defective condition upon ground apparatus defective amusement or devices that such or control of and are devices are under the upon used a Liability predicated concessionaire. is either reasonably operator to maintain nondelegable duty of the he must answer patrons, in accord with which place safe for his employees concessionaire the latter’s negligence upon merely rendering premises unsafe, duty to responsible for his breach of ground operator AmJur2d Amuse- keep premises reasonably safe.” 4 ALR2d, to the same effect 86 Exhibitions, ments and See therein; Dockery v. pp. 350, and cases cited World Anno., prin- Shows, Inc., of Mirth N. C. 406 park proprietor and the as between the amusement ciple that, *3 general duty to see that exhibition former has a public, the an invitation to enter is ex- grounds safe for those to whom are Assn, approval in Fair discussed with Southeastern tended was (2) (66 although 188), Davis, App. 84 Ga. opera- control of specifically based on-the decision was corporation putting on the fair. Here as retained tions fair, control of the in the case the defendant has Davis operation of concession- including type, location, and time of operated and on a public, issued the invitation to the aires. It duty public owed a profits division of basis. therefore given express promise separate and distinct the- them to ex- with Coosa Fair ordinary care to ascertain that the and conces- ercise it could not as a matter safe, sions thereon were and by treating responsibility divest itself of this the con- law ground by fair it as cessionaires into the grant- summary was error. contractors. The among contains, things, other inter us record before thereto, sets of an objections two plaintiff, rogatories of the relief, other compel answer swers, motions -further the refusal connection with motions in depositions, three sets of questions, certain on advice of counsel to answer witness interroga objections relate to various orders some which compel motion and some tories, deposition, some on action relating to of error further answer. The enumerations com refusing to sustaining objections or of the trial court either this pel too indefinite to allow entirely further answer are interroga deposition, identify order, particular them with dealing these mat tory with or motion. brief of counsel all enumerations poses questions ters three abstract to which citing pages of the record without presumably relate, but particular identify the may this court so that quoting therefrom and we are proceedings, the actual of error with enumerations frequently two through the objections unable to follow cases, in some nor, they underwent stage procedures which three particular enumeration argument as on identify the can we provide the court appellant imperative error. “It becomes transcript, court record or find, in the lower the means to with various a decision on the enu portions thereof is not done such and when this presented” of error merations English, disregarded. Strickland enumerated errors will be 710) and cit. summary motion for sustaining the court erred in The trial judgment. con- Quillian, J.,
Judgment Jordan, J.,P. concurs. reversed. specially. curs specially as to Division concurring Judge,
Quillian, Cook, Jack H. & contends that opinion. The d/b/a not and therefore was Rides, was Rides. While torts of H. & J. for the responsible Rides, for the &H. between *4 independent an Rides as designated H. J.& “Skyliner” of the provision: “Party of the following contained it agrees accept passes & J. Second Part Rides] [H. Shows, [Century First Part 21 Party of the by rides issued regulations set by the rules governed to be forth Inc.] Party Part. Party the First management by of of pays contractor and rent an Part Second 494
the party space provided of the First and shall Part be premises by way subject levy against of trade and not Party of First Part.” noted will be under Rides that H. &
subject regulations to the rules and established the defendant. There nowas limitation as to when these rules could be made nor was there subject they limitation as to the matter encompass. would gave Clearly the contract the defendant the right to control the time and manner of the “Skyliner.” Whether -may the defendant have exercised this right of control is not material in determining if contractor status existed. v. Peabody, Yearwood Ga. App. 901); Refining Co., SE Joiner Sinclair SE terms of H. & Rides was not an independent contractor and the defendant’s contention is with- out merit.
43090. GRAVES THE STATE. judgment appealed is as follows: Pannelu, “The having presented the above-stated case paper denominated trial’ ‘Amended motion for new day July, on the 24th of 1967, seeking have same and it allowed, appearing from all of the records of this court that no motion for trial has filed in case, new been said is, therefore, considered, adjudged ordered and said amended motion for new trial which seeks hereby file in this court is disallowed.” appealed not a judgment judgment from is final under Para- (a) graph Appellate Section Practice Act of 6-701) (Ga. 1965, p. 18; Ann. or a decision, ruling which “if it had been rendered as claimed have been a appellant, disposition would final party thereto,” cause or final as to some under Para- (a) graph (2), nor judgments is it one those from which appeal might (a) Paragraph be entered set forth in of said section. appeal
Accordingly, must be dismissed. Appeal Bell, J., Whitman, J., dismissed. P. concur.