 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grant v. Georgia Pacific8/30/1999
any other federal regulation. Indeed, he admitted that the failure to provide a supplied air system was not a violation of OSHA standards. Consequently, his expert opinion that Mr. Grant was not afforded appropriate respiratory protection (a self- contained air unit) is speculative, conclusory, and non-probative. Motorola, Inc. v. Ward, 223 Ga. App. 678, 679 (1) (478 SE2d 465).
(b) Even assuming, but not deciding, that defendants breached a duty of ordinary care owed to the invitee contract carrier by exposing him to the customary levels of turpentine fumes or vapor produced by outdoor loading, we conclude that neither the failure to warn of that obvious exposure nor the failure to provide a respirator suitable for use while plaintiff Flora Mae Scott's decedent was on top of the tanker amounts to the legal cause of Mr. Grant's demise.
"If the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant's negligence, he is not entitled to recover." OCGA ยง 51-11-7. It is undisputed that Mr. Grant had a respirator in the cab of his truck at the time he began loading the turpentine. In our view, the legal consequence of Mr. Grant's failure to use the safety equipment (respirator) he had the foresight to bring on his own amounts to a failure to exercise ordinary care to avoid the consequences to himself of the risk posed by the pervasive and pungent turpentine. Union Carbide Corporation v. Holton, 136 Ga. App. 726, 730 (2), 731 (222 SE2d 105). Accord Powell v. Harsco Corporation, 209 Ga. App. 348, 349 (2), 350 (433 SE2d 608) (Alleged inadequacy of installation instructions cannot be the proximate cause of fatal collapse of the catwalk, where the installer did not read the instructions actually provided). The trial court correctly granted summary judgment, based on the entire record before us.
Judgment affirmed. Andrews, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.
|