Auld v. Forbes
Decision Date | 28 September 2020 |
Docket Number | S20G0020,S20G0021 |
Citation | 848 S.E.2d 876,309 Ga. 893 |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties | AULD et al. v. FORBES et al. Auld et al. v. Forbes et al. |
Douglas Lee Clayton, Jennifer Lauren Nichols, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP, The Peachtree, Suite 300, 1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3231, Leigh Martin Wilco, Weissman PC, One Alliance Center, 3500 Lenox Road, 4th Floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30326, Attorneys for the Appellant.
Latif Oduola-Owoo, Robert Louis Arrington, Jr., Arrington Owoo, PC, 1230 Peachtree St NE, Ste 1900, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Katrenia R. Collins, Katrenia R. Collins, LLC, PO Box 55167, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Michael Brian Terry, Amanda Kay Seals, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 3900, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3417, Tricia Purks Hoffler, The CK Hoffler Firm, 23 Lenox Pointe, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30324, Attorneys for the Appellee.
Todd Emory Hatcher, Gregory, Doyle, Calhoun & Rogers LLC, 49 Atlanta Street, Marietta, Georgia 30060, Steven Stein, Brady Law Group, 1015 Irwin Street, San Rafael, California 64901, Attorneys for the Other Party.
Following Tomari Jackson's drowning death while on a school trip in Belize, his mother, Adell Forbes, individually and as administrator of Jackson's estate (collectively, "Forbes"), filed a wrongful death action in Georgia. Because Forbes filed the action outside the applicable limitation period provided for under Belize law but within the period that would be applicable under Georgia law, whether Georgia's or Belize's limitation period applies to that wrongful death action is of critical importance. In Forbes v. Auld , 351 Ga. App. 555, 557-560 (2), 830 S.E.2d 770 (2019), the Court of Appeals held that Georgia law, and not Belize law, controlled the limitation period governing the wrongful death claim. Because we hold instead that Belize's limitation period applies to Forbes's wrongful death action, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision as to that issue.
The facts, as set forth by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
Forbes , 351 Ga. App. at 556 (1), 830 S.E.2d 770.
Forbes appealed, challenging the trial court's ruling that her claims were time-barred.
See id. at 557 (1), 830 S.E.2d 770. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Georgia's two-year statute of limitations on wrongful death claims, and not Belize's one-year limitation period under the Law of Torts Act of Belize, applied to Forbes's claim.2 See id. at 557-560 (2), 830 S.E.2d 770. We granted the defendants’ petition for certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that Georgia law applies to the wrongful death claim. Because we hold that Belize's limitation period applies, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals with respect to the wrongful death claim.
When a civil tort action is brought in a Georgia court for a harm that was sustained in an out-of-state jurisdiction, the Georgia court must determine which jurisdiction's laws apply to the claim. Georgia law differentiates between substantive and procedural law in such instances and determines which law will apply to the case through the doctrines of lex loci delicti (the law of the place where the injury was sustained) and lex fori (the law of the forum state).
"[F]or over 100 years, the state of Georgia has followed the doctrine of lex loci delicti in tort cases, pursuant to which ‘a tort action is governed by the substantive law of the state where the tort was committed.’ " Bullard v. MRA Holding, LLC , 292 Ga. 748, 750 (1), 740 S.E.2d 622 (2013) (quoting Dowis v. Mud Slingers, Inc. , 279 Ga. 808, 809, 621 S.E.2d 413 (2005) ).
The place where the tort was committed, or, the locus delicti, is the place where the injury sustained was suffered rather than the place where the act was committed, or, as it is sometimes more generally put, it is the place where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes place.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 750-751 (1), 740 S.E.2d 622.
At oral argument before this Court, Forbes argued that because she alleged that the school trip, including swimming at the wildlife sanctuary where Jackson drowned, was planned in Georgia and sufficient safety precautions were not considered or implemented, her wrongful death claim can be brought under Georgia law. However, it is clear that the "last event necessary" to make the defendants liable for the alleged tort of wrongful death – that is, Jackson's drowning – took place in Belize, and that Belize was the where the injury was suffered. See, e.g., Risdon Enter., Inc. v. Colemill Enter., Inc. , 172 Ga. App. 902, 904, 324 S.E.2d 738 (1984) ( ).
Taylor , 231 Ga. at 853, 204 S.E.2d 747. See also Indon Indus. Inc. v. Charles S. Martin Distrib. Co., Inc. , 234 Ga. 845, 846, 218 S.E.2d 562 (1975). Thus, when the applicable foreign law creates a cause of action that is not recognized in the common law and includes a specific limitation period, that limitation period is a substantive provision of the foreign law that governs, and it applies when it is shorter than the period provided for under Georgia law. "There is no common law right to file a claim for wrongful death; the claim is entirely a statutory creation." Tolbert v. Maner , 271 Ga. 207, 208 (1), 518 S.E.2d 423 (1999). Belize's Law of Torts Act creates a cause of action for wrongful deaths occurring in Belize and imposes a one-year limitation period in which to bring such claims. Accordingly, the doctrine of lex loci delicti requires application of Belize's substantive limitation period, unless doing so would violate Georgia public policy. We turn next to that inquiry.
Forbes correctly asserts that Georgia recognizes a public policy exception to lex loci delicti, whereby "the Georgia court will not apply the law of the place where the injury was sustained if it would conflict with Georgia's public policy." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Coon v. Med. Center, Inc. , 300 Ga. 722, 727, 797 S.E.2d 828 (2017). See also OCGA § 1-3-9.3 However, the public policy exception applies only if the out-of-state law is so "radically dissimilar to anything existing in our own system of jurisprudence" that it would "seriously contravene" the policy embodied in Georgia law. Southern R. Co. v. Decker , 5 Ga. App. 21, 25 (1), 29 (2), 62 S.E. 678 (1908). See also Alexander v. GMC, 219 Ga. App. 660, 660-661, 466 S.E.2d 607 (1995) (same), reversed, 267 Ga. 339, 340, 478 S.E.2d 123 (1996) ( ). A mere difference in law is not sufficient to justify this exception. We hereby disapprove of cases where the public policy exception has been construed more liberally. See, e.g., Coon v. Medical Center, Inc. , 335 Ga. App. 278, 283, 780 S.E.2d 118 (2015) (, )affirmed on other grounds, 300 Ga. 722, 797 S.E.2d 828 ; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harvey v. Merchan
...a tort action is generally governed by the substantive law of the place where the tort was committed. See Auld v. Forbes , 309 Ga. 893, 894 (2) (a), 848 S.E.2d 876 (2020) ; Bullard v. MRA Holding, LLC , 292 Ga. 748, 750 (1), 740 S.E.2d 622 (2013).5 The place where a tort was committed is "t......
-
Bowen v. Porsche Cars, N.A., Inc.
...statute; however, Glock contains no choice of law analysis. See Glock, 247 F. Supp. 3d at 1318-20.Porsche's citation to Auld v. Forbes, 309 Ga. 893, 848 S.E.2d 876 (2020), fares no better. See Def.’s Reply at 3. The Supreme Court of Georgia's holding in Auld had nothing to do with whether c......
-
United Parcel Serv. of Am. v. Whitlock
...a case addressing choice of law related to a drowning death in Belize. On November 23, 2021, the trial court issued a new order in light of Auld determined that South Carolina law would apply to the plaintiffs' claims for wrongful death and punitive damages, as well as any apportionment of ......
-
Burbach v. Motorsports of Conyers, LLC
...omitted). The Appellees argue that the trial court was correct in finding that the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Auld v. Forbes , 309 Ga. 893, 848 S.E.2d 876 (2020) should serve as the framework for analyzing this choice-of-law clause and that Auld foreclosed Burbach's argument on thi......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure
...§ 51-12-33(b).53. Trabue, 310 Ga. at 338, 850 S.E.2d at 755.54. Id. at 339, 850 S.E.2d at 755-56.55. Id. at 340, 850 S.E.2d at 756.56. 309 Ga. 893, 848 S.E.2d 876 (2020).57. Id. at 893, 848 S.E.2d at 878.58. Forbes v. Auld, 351 Ga. App. 555, 555 830 S.E.2d 770, 771 (2019).59. Auld, 309 Ga. ......
-
Creating a Civil Remedy in Georgia for Survivors of Out-of-state Childhood Sexual Abuse
...or private legal organization[s][.]" O.C.G.A § 9-3-33.1(d)(1).62. Evans, supra note 40.63. Id.64. Evans, supra note 56.65. Auld v. Forbes, 309 Ga. 893, 848 S.E.2d. 876 (2020); see also Bullard v. MRA Holding, LLC, 292 Ga. 748, 751, 740 S.E.2d 622, 625-26 (2013) (holding a videotape taken in......