Close v. Matson, 38474
| Decision Date | 27 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 38474,38474,2 |
| Citation | 117 S.E.2d 251,102 Ga.App. 663 |
| Parties | K. D. CLOSE et al. v. Betty W. MATSON |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Walter LeCraw, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
James M. McDaniel, Greer, Henning & Morris, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. The petition in this case, the same purporting to be an action for damages against Close and others alleged to have been joint tort-feasors, after setting forth the way and manner in which it is claimed Close's codefendant injured and damaged the plaintiff, and the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, then purports to set forth the way and manner in which it is contended that Close injured and damaged the plaintiff, and as to these injuries it merely alleges that such acts on the part of Close caused 'further injury to plaintiff.' There are no other allegations in the petition setting forth the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries claimed to have been inflicted by the defendant Close. The bare allegation that the defendant Close's actions inflicted 'further injury to plaintiff,' is a bare conclusion unsupported by any facts alleged and is insufficient to support the cause of action against him. Hearn v. Gower, 1 Ga.App. 265(2), 57 S.E. 916; Hodgins v. Bingham, 141 App.Div. 514, 126 N.Y.S. 493(1). The trial court erred in overruling the general demurrers of the defendant Kenneth Close and of his wife, Mrs. Olga R. Close, who was sued as the owner of the family purpose automobile being operated by Mr. Close. Such allegations as to the damages inflicted by Close were wholly insufficient to show that the plaintiff was injured and damaged to any extent by the negligent acts of the defendant Close alleged in the petition.
2. The petition in this case alleges that the car of the codefendant, Rape, collided with the rear of the plaintiff's automobile inflicting certain injuries upon her, and that immediately thereafter the automobile driven by the defendant Close collided with the rear of Rape's car and knocked it into the rear of the plaintiff's automobile inflicting further injury to the plaintiff. These allegations make a case of two separate and distinct torts inflicted upon the plaintiff in close proximity of time and space, but they do not show a concert of action on the part of Rape and Close, nor a single injury resulting from their separate acts, but the allegations show two separate and distinct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilson v. Mitchell
...independent, be found to have combined naturally and directly to produce a single injury. (Citations.) The statement in Close v. Matson, 102 Ga.App. 663(2) 117 S.E.2d 251, cited by appellants, which intimates that a concert of action is required to find a joint tortfeasor relationship, is a......
-
McDougal v. Johnson
...v. Hall, 72 Ga.App.867, 873, 35 S.E.2d 478; Reeves v. Madray, 101 Ga.App. 300, 302, 113 S.E.2d 651. The case of Close et al. v. Matson, 102 Ga.App. 663, 117 S.E.2d 251 is distinguishable from the one sub judice since that case was an appeal from rulings made upon the demurrers. Moreover, si......
-
Stone's Independent Oil Distributors v. Bailey, s. 45007-45009
...592; Longino v. Moore, 53 Ga.App. 674, 187 S.E. 203; Akin v. Brantley, 26 Ga.App. 326, 106 S.E. 214. The statement in Close v. Matson, 102 Ga.App. 663(2), 117 S.E.2d 251, cited by appellants, which intimates that a concert of action is required to find a joint tortfeasor relationship, is ag......
-
J. & C. Ornamental Iron Co. v. Watkins
...plaintiff's business by these acts is a mere conclusion of the pleader. Hearn v. Gower, 1 Ga.App. 265(2), 57 S.E. 916; Close v. Matson, 102 Ga.App. 663(1), 117 S.E.2d 251. Thus the petition fails to state a cause of action upon any Under these circumstances plaintiff's charge that defendant......