Wright Associates, Inc. v. Rieder
Georgia Supreme Court
247 Ga. 496, 277 S.E.2d 41 (1981)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
The Georgia Education Authority contracted with general contractor Wright Associates, Inc. (Wright) (defendant) to construct a building at a junior college. Wright contracted with independent subcontractor Eastern Steel Erectors, Inc. (Eastern) for some of the construction work. Wright’s contract with Eastern required Eastern to carry workers’-compensation insurance and to agree to indemnify Wright in the event Wright was held liable to any of Eastern’s employees for workers’-compensation benefits. Thomas Rieder (plaintiff), an Eastern employee, was injured in an accident at the construction site. Rieder received workers’-compensation benefits from Eastern for his injuries. Rieder then sued Wright in Georgia state court, alleging that his injury had been caused by a Wright employee’s negligence. Wright moved for summary judgment on Rieder’s negligence claim. Wright argued that Rieder’s tort action was barred because under Georgia’s workers’-compensation statute, Wright, as the principal contractor, was liable to Rieder only to the same extent as Eastern, Rieder’s immediate employer. The trial court denied Wright’s summary-judgment motion, and the appellate court denied review. Wright appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hill, J.)
Dissent (Undercofler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
