Davidson v. Meticulously Clean Sweepers LLC

The personal injury plaintiffs could not recover as a third-party beneficiary of the defendant independent contractor's agreement with a shopping center owner based on the independent contractor's alleged failure to perform a duty the contract imposed, since the contract was clear that neither party intended to confer a direct benefit on any third party.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In January 2011, after a winter storm, plaintiff Nancy Davidson fell outside a Dollar Tree store in a Macon shopping center owned by three corporate entities collectively, “Rivergate”. Davidson and her husband sued Rivergate; its property management company; Dollar Tree; the Dollar Tree manager; and Meticulously Clean Sweepers, LLC “MCS”, an independent contractor which had applied a de-icing mixture to the area on the night before Davidson fell. After all defendants except MCS settled with the Davidsons, MCS moved for summary judgment, which was granted on grounds including that the Davidsons were not third-party beneficiaries of the contract between Rivergate and MCS and that there was no evidence that MCS had been negligent. On appeal, the Davidsons argue that the grant of summary judgment was error because questions of material fact remain as to whether MCS was negligent in its application of the de-icing mixture, which it had undertaken to do in its contract with Rivergate; whether that negligence was a proximate cause of Davidson’s injury, and whether MCS had superior knowledge of the hazard posed by ice in the area where Davidson fell. We reject these contentions and therefore affirm.

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. . . . The burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

Davidson v. Meticulously Clean Sweepers LLC

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report