Collipp v. Newman, A95A0443
Decision Date | 28 June 1995 |
Docket Number | No. A95A0443,A95A0443 |
Citation | 458 S.E.2d 701,217 Ga.App. 674 |
Parties | COLLIPP et al. v. NEWMAN et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Gilbert, Harrell, Gilbert, Sumerford & Martin, Wallace E. Harrell, III, Lisa S. Godbey, Fendig, McLemore, Taylor & Whitworth, Phillip R. Taylor, Brunswick, for appellants.
Ashman, Lasky & Cooper, Jeffrey W. Lasky, Savannah, for appellees.
Mr. and Mrs. Steven Newman, Sr., as next friends and guardians of Steven D. Newman, Jr., brought suit against four defendants seeking damages arising from a circumcision performed on Steven, Jr. The suit was filed in Chatham County State Court against Dr. Platon Jack Collipp, a Wayne County resident, who performed the circumcision and Wayne County Memorial Hospital, the facility at which the procedure was performed. Also named in the action were two doctors, both residents of Chatham County, who provided subsequent medical care.
All claims against the two Chatham County defendants were dismissed with prejudice after the Newmans signed a full and final release of all claims against them. Collipp and Wayne County Hospital filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to Wayne County asserting that venue was no longer proper in Chatham County. The trial court, relying on Carney v. JDN Constr. Co., 206 Ga.App. 785, 790(5), 426 S.E.2d 611 (1992), denied the motion. We granted appellants' application for interlocutory appeal to clarify any confusion which may have been created by Carney regarding the effect on venue after the dismissal of all resident joint tortfeasors.
A defendant is entitled to be sued in the county of his residence. Ga. Const. 1983 Art. VI, § II, Par. VI. Suits against joint tortfeasors residing in different counties may be tried in either county. Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, § II, Par. IV. However, proper venue against a nonresident joint tortfeasor may vanish. The venerable principle of vanishing venue was well established at the turn of the century. "[W]here suit is brought against two defendants, one of whom resides in the county, the court has no jurisdiction of the non-resident defendant unless the resident codefendant is liable in the action." (Emphasis supplied.) Ross v. Battle, 117 Ga. 877, 880, 45 S.E. 252 (1903). In Timberlake Grocery Co. v. Cartwright, 146 Ga.App. 746, 747, 247 S.E.2d 567 (1978) this court clarified the concept: "[I]f no judgment is taken against a resident defendant, the court loses venue as to the nonresident defendant(s)...." Addressing the same principle, the Georgia Supreme Court held that where a single suit is brought against several joint tortfeasors in a county where one of them is a resident, and where the resident is found not liable by the jury, and the non-resident defendants are found liable, the court is without jurisdiction to enter judgment against the non-resident defendants. Southeastern Truck Lines v. Rann, 214 Ga. 813, 815, 108 S.E.2d 561 (1959).
In Motor Convoy v. Brannen, 194 Ga.App. 795, 391 S.E.2d 671 aff'd. 260 Ga. 340, 393 S.E.2d 262 (1990), this court held the requirement that a judgment be entered against the resident tortfeasor can be satisfied by entry of a consent judgment. Id. at 797. Therefore, because a final judgment had been entered against the resident joint tortfeasor, regardless of whether the judgment was by consent, venue did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Habif, Arogeti & Wynne, PC v. Baggett
-
Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford
...the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss a party against whom there were no longer any claims pending. See Collipp v. Newman, 217 Ga.App. 674, 458 S.E.2d 701 (1995). Further, the record in Carney shows that the settlement agreement, with the amount of the settlement edited from it, was ......
-
Torrance v. Morris Publishing Group LLC
...(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cabaniss v. Hipsley, 114 Ga.App. 367, 375(3), 151 S.E.2d 496 (1966). 20. See Collipp v. Newman, 217 Ga.App. 674, 675, 458 S.E.2d 701 (1995). 21. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. 22. (Citations omitted.) Carroll City/County Hosp. Auth. v. Cox Ent......
-
Exum v. Melton
...and SMITH, P.J., concur. 1.Ford v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 270 Ga. 730, 733(3), 514 S.E.2d 201 (1999). 2. Collipp v. Newman, 217 Ga.App. 674, 675, 458 S.E.2d 701 (1995). 3. Gary v. Hobson, 208 Ga.App. 781, 782, 431 S.E.2d 753 (1993). 4. "[A] person may waive or renounce what the law has......
-
Torts - Cynthia Trimboli Adams and Charles R. Adams Iii
...S.e.2d at 326. 77. Id. 78. Id. 79. Id. 80. Id. 81. Id. See O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-11-4 (1993). 82. 206 Ga. App. 785, 426 S.e.2d 611 (1992). 83. 217 Ga. App. 674, 458 S.e.2d 701 (1995). 84. Id. at 675, 458 S.e.2d at 701. 85. Id. (quoting Ross v. Battle, 117 Ga. 877, 880, 45 S.E. 252 (1903)) (emphas......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby and Teresa T. Abell
...S.e.2d at 326. 77. Id. 78. Id. 79. Id. 80. Id. 81. Id. See O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-11-4 (1993). 82. 206 Ga. App. 785, 426 S.e.2d 611 (1992). 83. 217 Ga. App. 674, 458 S.e.2d 701 (1995). 84. Id. at 675, 458 S.e.2d at 701. 85. Id. (quoting Ross v. Battle, 117 Ga. 877, 880, 45 S.E. 252 (1903)) (emphas......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby, Jason Crawford, and Teresa T. Abell
...877, 880, 45 S.E. 252, 254 (1903); Brooks v. H & H Creek, Inc., 223 Ga. App. 635, 638, 478 S.E.2d 451, 455 (1996); Collipp v. Newman, 217 Ga. App. 674, 675, 458 S.E.2d 701, 701-02 (1995); Zepp v. Toporek, 211 Ga. App. 169, 172, 438 S.E.2d 636, 640 (1993); Timberlake Grocery Co. v. Cartwrigh......