Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. v. Georgia Ports Auth.

The evidence did not support the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue of liability in a case arising from the destruction of a leased crane because the terms of the lease agreement did not establish that the crane operator was the defendant's borrowed servant as a matter of law.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This is the second appearance of this case before this court. The operative facts are recited in Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. v. Georgia Ports Auth., 301 Ga. App. 62 686 SE2d 844 2009 hereinafter “CTS I”:

This is a breach of contract action brought by the Georgia Ports Authority “the GPA” and The Georgia Department of Administrative Services “DAS” against Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Inc. “CTS” and Cooper/T. Smith Corporation1 . . . to enforce a contract by which the GPA leased a gantry crane to CTS to discharge cargo from a ship berthed at the GPA’s Ocean Terminal located in Savannah in Chatham County. The contract terms are set forth in a document known as GPA Terminal Tariff No. 5 “the Tariff”, which provided the rates, rules, and regulations governing various services at the Ocean Terminal, including the GPA’s lease of cranes to stevedoring companies for discharge of cargo from ships. It is undisputed that, while CTS was using the crane, it fell over and was destroyed during an attempt to lift cargo from the ship.2 The GPA and the DAS sued CTS in the Fulton County Superior Court to enforce contract terms which allegedly made CTS liable for the destruction of the crane and for the cost of replacement. CTS appeals from the superior court’s order granting motions for partial summary judgment in favor of the GPA and the DAS on liability and the measure of damages, and denying CTS’s motion for partial summary judgment on the measure of damages.

Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. v. Georgia Ports Auth.

The evidence did not support the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue of liability in a case arising from the destruction of a leased crane because the terms of the lease agreement did not establish that the crane operator was the defendant's borrowed servant as a matter of law.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report