*1 of requirements process due constitutional mandated that a mean also This would fairness. fundamental not aсt authority should governing county of a member he, any or in which re-zoning question zoning or on a financial interest has a family, immediate of his member But, duty beyond generally. public not shared interest, of self questions pass upon of the court of fairness, a vast area there is process infect due right have no the courts in which motivations legislative scheme. our constitutional under expertise explore explore properly Thereforе, I do believe effectively decisions and zoning of background into county governing city second-guess judicial a broader toward Any tendency authorities. Hunt v. contrary decisions zoning review zoning McCollum, to erode the I believe tends supra, and city governing delegated county power expressly Constitution. in our state authorities INSURANCE WASHINGTON 28958. PROVIDENCE et al. v. SIMS COMPANY et al. v. SIMS COMPANY GULF INSURANCE 28959. CASUALTY v. AMERICAN 28963. SIMS et al. et al. COMPANY INSURANCE 28964. UNION COMMERCIAL et al. et al. v. SIMS COMPANY v. SIMS 28965. AMERICAN CASUALTY Per curiam. in the above Appeals of the Court opinion this court rеviewed thoroughly
cases has been Casualty v. American See Sims certiorari and is affirmed. 121). concur, excеpt All the Justices Judgment affirmed. Hall, J., Jordan, JJ., dis- Gunter and qualified. September July
Argued 6, 1974 Decided 8, Rehearing September 24, 1974. denied Murphy, Powell, Goldstein, Love,Jr., Frazer & Frank Hughes, Rawles, Randall James C. for Providence Washington Ins. Co. *2 George
Shoob, Jessee, Jessee, Jr., McLain & C. James Duncan, Jr., E. for Sims.
Gambrell, Russell, Killorin, Forbes, Wade & Edward Killorin, Stumm, W. Richard for American Cas. Co. Neely, Hawkins, Parnell, Freeman & Albert H. Alan Herman, Welch, F. J. Bruce for Commercial Union. Bucklеy, Hugh Greene, Jones, Robinson, DeRieux & Eichelberger, James A. Mut. Michigan Long, Weinberg,Ansley Wheeler, Goetz, & Charles M. Jr., Surety for Aetna Cas. & Co. et al.
Henning, Mabry, Speer Mabry, & E. Chambers Ward Hull, D. fоr Aetna Ins. Co. George Currie, Hiers, Hart, McGhee &
Swift, W. Continental Ins. Co.
Troutman, Sanders, Ashmore, Lockerman & Ezra Cohen, for Hartford. Lane,
A. Ed for American Home Assurance. Lokey Bowden, Frick, Glenn for Gulf Ins. Co. Justice, dissenting. Gunter, I would judgment reverse the of the Court of Appeals and affirm of the trial court in these cases. It my view that complaint did not state a claim the inspecting insurance carriers.
The deceased was injured аnd later died due to an alleged defective existing condition in employer’s his plant where the deceаsed complaint worked. The alleged that the defendant insurance carriers made safety inspectiоns of the employer’s plant, that the safety inspections made, negligently were and that because of thе insurance carriers in were liable tort for the injuries and death resulting explosion in plant.
The deceased and the employer were Act, Compensation and the death had been compensated pursuant рrovisions. rights to its remedies accorded to an under that Act exclude rights all other and remedies that his personal representative had at common law. Code Ann. 114-103. § alleged
In this case damages resulted from an explosion employer’s plant. that occurred Under pre- the Workmen’s Act the damages compensable scribed the Act are the employer plant, assumed defective condition of the part not need bе However, charged proved. recoverable Act, are limited and the not liable short, tort In defectivе condition plant maintained caused the employer’s negligence presumed and the em-. ployer’s negligence proved. need be In situation who is, the plant, to the presumed negligence of the employеr, is not a third-party tortfeasor whom an employee or his personal representative bring an action. For *3 a against covered to maintain an action a third- tortfeasor, party the third party’s must be independеnt of that the When the third employer. party merely is a contributor to employer, merely to defect employer’s premises which causes the the third party is isolated from a common tort claim by law Compensation Act. Workmen’s (1) 290) (127
In Athens R. &c. Kinney, v. 1 160 Ga. SE (1924), this held that the widow of an employee could maintain an action a third party "wherе employer and party joint such third were not . . .” In Co. v. Phillips, App. tortfeasors 69 Ga. Sheffield (1) (24 834) (1943), SE2d it was held that such an aсtion could be maintained "where the was not as injury joint render a tortfeasor with the negligent person.” third
My of the this understanding law on if plant a defective condition causes to an employee, legally responsibile condition, a merely and faulty a to that defective case, as in this inspection premises, of the negligent mеaning tortfeasor within third-party a Act. in Mull v. Aetna I the results reached agree with 147) (1969), Casualty &c. inspectors merely сontributed in that case condition maintained plant dangerous employer. maintain an successfully
For a сovered tortfeasor, party’s the third third-party action employer, of that of the independent negligence must be factor to the defective contributing it not be a and must that caused condition of plant of the Court of I reverse would Appeals. I am authorized to state that respectfully
I with this dissent. Justice Jordan concurs RAILROAD 28968. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA еt al. v. COLLINS Justice. Hall, nuisance case the Central appeal
This is an railroad”) ("the Company Railroad ("thе Industries, sugar Inc. Savannah Foods below, from a verdict jury defendants company”), alleging injury homeowners plaintiffs, who are noise of a railroad car their homes. immediately 1966 on tracks behind
since 1966, had weighing operation years Prior unpopulated area some been conducted in a secluded tracks, objection by withоut 800 feet farther down the *4 railroad weighing plaintiffs. facilities sugar company, weighing for the personnel supervises sugar company, wholly owned the operation. extreme noise and vibration
Plaintiffs testified to after the objectionable only