Harper v. DeFreitas, 43318

Decision Date31 January 1968
Docket NumberNo. 2,No. 43318,43318,2
PartiesJackie HARPER et al. v. John DeFREITAS, Jr
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

1. Under the Civil Practice Act (Ga.L.1966, p. 609, as amended by Ga.L.1967, p. 226) a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless the averments in the complaint disclose with certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts that could be proved in support of the claim.

2. A person who gives assistance in starting a stalled automobile with the motorist's consent is not a volunteer in the sense that the duty owed him by the motorist would be reduced from the normal standard of ordinary care.

John DeFreitas, Jr. brought this suit for personal injuries against Jackie Harper and Mrs. Inez Harper. The complaint alleged that plaintiff offered his services as a neighborly act in helping to start defendants' car, which was out of gasoline. Plaintiff got a gallon can of gasoline, and before putting it in the car, he instructed defendants to wait for a signal from him before they attempted to start the car, so that he could remove himself from danger near the carburetor. He then put most of the gasoline in the tank and a small amount in the carburetor. Without waiting for a signal, defendants negligently attempted to start the car, engaging the starter. This caused the gasoline in the carburetor to catch fire and severely burn plaintiff.

Defendants took this appeal from the court's judgment overruling their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Civil Practice Act (Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 623; Code Ann. § 81A-112(b)), for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Memory, Barnes & Memory, S. F. Memory, Jr., Waycross, for appellant.

George E. Maddox, Douglas, for appellee.

BELL, Presiding Judge.

Defendants argue that the complaint shows that plaintiff was a mere volunteer and it was thus defective for failure to allege that defendants injured plaintiff wilfully and wantonly. This contention is without merit.

The cases of Early v. Houser & Houser, 28 Ga.App. 24, 109 S.E. 914; Callaham v. Carlson, 85 Ga.App. 4, 15, 67 S.E.2d 726; and Barber v. Rich's Inc., 92 Ga.App. 880, 884, 90 S.E.2d 666, cited by defendants, are not apposite here. Those cases held that one who voluntarily undertakes to perform service for a master at the request of a servant who has no authority to employ other servants, is a mere volunteer and the master does not owe him any duty except not to injure him wilfully and wantonly aftter his peril is discovered. The services of plaintiff in this case were not secured by a servant of defendants without authority. This case is thus distinguishable from Rooks v. Jordan, 115 Ga.App. 360, 154 S.E.2d 746.

A petition filed before the effective date of the Civil Practice Act (Ga.L.1966, p. 609, as amended by Ga.L.1967, p. 226; Code Ann.Title 81A) would be construed most strongly against the pleader when considered on general demurrer and in light of its omissions as well as its averments. Mackler v. Lahman, 196 Ga. 535, 537, 27 S.E.2d 35; Toler v. Goodin, 200 Ga. 527, 534, 37 S.E.2d 609. If an inference unfavorable to the pleader could be fairly drawn from the facts alleged, that inference would prevail in determining the rights of the parties. Drueger v. MacDougald, 148 Ga. 429(1), 96 S.E. 867; Chalverus v. Wilson Mfg. Co., 212 Ga. 612(1), 94 S.E.2d 736. The Civil Practice Act changed these rules. As the Act is substantially indentical with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.), it is appropriate to resort to federal cases for its construction. Holland v. Sanfax, 106 Ga.App. 1, 4, 126 S.E.2d 442. On a motion to dismiss, a complaint should be construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff with all doubts resolved in his favor. Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co., 7 Cir., 260 F.2d 607, 608. The plaintiff is entitled to the most favorable inferences that can reasonably be drawn from the complaint, even if contrary inferences are also possible. Sidebotham v. Robison, 9 Cir., 216 F.2d 816, 831. The motion to dismiss should not be granted unless the averments in the complaint disclose with certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of his claim. King Edward Employees, etc., Union v. Travelers Indem. Co., 5 Cir., 206 F.2d 726, 728; Melo-Sonics Corp. v. Cropp, 3 Cir., 342 F.2d 856, 858; Fowler v. Southern Bell T. & T. Co., 5 Cir., 343 F.2d 150, 153. See the host of cases annotated at 28 U.S.C.A., Rule 12, Note 69.

While the complaint does not aver that defendants either requested or consented to plaintiff's assistance, it does not show that he was a persona non grata intruding himself into a matter in which he had no interest without defendants' consent. We infer that as the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
112 cases
  • Hunter v. A-1 Bonding Service, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 20, 1968
    ...would have been correct. Ford Motor Company v. Williams, 219 Ga. 505, 134 S.E.2d 32. But under our ruling in Harper v. DeFreitas, 117 Ga.App. 236(1), 160 S.E.2d 260 it seems to us that the petition was sufficient to withstand the assault of the As was pointed out in the recent case of Byrd ......
  • Giordano v. Stubbs
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 29, 1973
    ...Ford Motor Co., 118 Ga.App. 333, 163 S.E.2d 327; Hunter v. A-1 Bonding Service, 118 Ga.App. 498(2), 164 S.E.2d 246; Harper v. DeFreitas, 117 Ga.App. 236(1), 160 S.E.2d 260; Bourn v. Herring, 225 Ga. 67(3), 166 S.E.2d 89. 'The purpose of the Summary Judgment Act of 1959 (later incorporated i......
  • Bulloch County Hospital Authority v. Fowler
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 1971
    ...competent evidence that she has a claim upon which relief can be granted. Denial of the motions to dismiss was proper. Harper v. DeFreitas, 117 Ga.App. 236, 160 S.E.2d 260. 2. There was no error in sustaining the motion to strike the reference to plaintiff's children made in paragraph 1 of ......
  • Ford v. Whipple
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 1997
    ...would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of his claim. [Cits.]" Harper v. DeFreitas, 117 Ga.App. 236, 238, 160 S.E.2d 260 (1968); see also Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Dockery, 135 Ga.App. 540, 543, 218 S.E.2d 263 (1975). " ' "If, within the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT