City of Buford v. Hosch
| Decision Date | 27 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 39029,39029,3 |
| Citation | 104 Ga.App. 615,122 S.E.2d 287 |
| Parties | CITY OF BUFORD et al. v. Paul HOSCH, Jr |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the negligent acts of two persons combine, although hot done simultaneously, to cause an injury to a third person they are joint tort-feasors, and the release of the first tort-feasor will release the other.
Paul Hosch, Jr., filed an action against the City of Buford, Ga. and H. M. Taylor, a police officer of such city, to recover for injuries sustained when, after being involved in one wreck, when the automobile in which he was riding as a guest went out of control and turned over, the plaintiff was injured when an automobile driven by Joe Wansley struck the vehicle involved in the first wreck and as a result of such collision the defendant's automobile was struck causing the same to be 'knocked' upon the plaintiff. The defendants filed their answers and an amendment thereto, which answer as amended not only denied the material allegations showing negligence on their part but pleaded the release of a joint tort-feasor which release had the effect of releasing them. On the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and thereafter the defendants' motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto in accordance with their motion for a directed verdict was overruled and it is to such judgment adverse to them that the defendants now except.
Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, Douglas Dennis, B. Carl Buice, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Howard T. Oliver, Jr., Gainesville, for defendant in error.
The defendants in the present case contend, in support of their motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto, that the release given to the driver of the automobile in which the plaintiff was a guest relieved them of liability.
The defendants contend, assuming arguendo that they were negligent, that they were joint tort-feasors with the driver of the automobile in which the plaintiff was a guest and the release given one released all so as to bar a recovery in the present case.
In the case of McDougal v. Johnson, 104 Ga.App. 233, 121 S.E.2d 417, the holding in the second division of the case of Close v. Matson, 102 Ga.App. 663, 117 S.E.2d 251, was held to be dictum. In Longino v. Moore, 53 Ga.App. 674, 187 S.E. 203, 204, it was stated: "It is a well-established general rule that 'where two or more persons or corporations,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilson v. Mitchell
...acts of negligence naturally combine to produce a single injury are joint tortfeasors. This was also the approach in City of Buford v. Hosch, 104 Ga.App. 615, 122 S.E.2d 287 in which the court quoted from and approved an example from Restatement, Torts, § 879, wherein A negligently drives i......
-
Knight v. Lowery
...in cases such as Caplan v. Caplan, 62 Ga.App. 577, 9 S.E.2d 96; Gorman v. Griffin, 70 Ga.App. 585, 28 S.E.2d 897; City of Buford v. Hosch, 104 Ga.App. 615, 122 S.E.2d 287 and others (insofar as they stand for the proposition that a release given only to one tortfeasor effects, by operation ......
-
Revis v. Forsyth County Hosp. Authority, 66919
...as to one joint tortfeasor is a release to all. Grizzard v. Davis, 131 Ga.App. 577, 581, 206 S.E.2d 853 (1974), City of Buford v. Hosch, 104 Ga.App. 615, 122 S.E.2d 287 (1961). The reason behind this principle is that although plaintiff was damaged by the joint act of two persons, there is ......
-
Fulmer v. Ward Machinery Co.
...a single injury, the two persons are joint tort-feasors, and the release of one discharges the other. See City of Buford v. Hosch, 104 Ga.App. 615, 122 S.E.2d 287 (1961). ...