Day v. Randolph

Decision Date09 September 1981
Docket NumberNo. 62391,62391
Citation283 S.E.2d 687,159 Ga.App. 474
PartiesDAY v. RANDOLPH et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

William H. Pinson, Jr., Brent J. Savage, Savannah, for appellant.

Stanley Karsman, Jack H. Usher, James E. Yates III, A. Martin Kent, Savannah, for appellees.

DEEN, Presiding Judge.

The appellant Day, plaintiff in the trial court, was a member of a volunteer rescue group in Chatham County some of whose members also belonged to the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), an organization which apparently requires application, dues, and attendance at some meetings, none of which Day apparently did, although he apparently believed himself to be a member. On the day in question he was informed by a buddy who was a member of CAP that a tornado had touched down near Savannah and that they were needed for a rescue mission. Day and others assembled at the designated spot; there is an apparent dispute in the evidence as to whether a requested CAP mission number was actually furnished the group. They were directed to a house which had been struck and while removing tree limbs from the roof Day fell and was badly injured. He had been told both before and after the accident that he was a member of CAP and would be taken care of. When however, the insurer refused medical benefits, Day filed this suit against CAP and his alleged superior, Browne. The original action and also an amendment thereto sounded alternately in negligence and in fraud. Defendants moved for summary judgment and, after hearing, were granted a partial summary judgment as to the counts sounding in fraud and deceit. Judgment was denied as to the negligence counts. Plaintiff appeals.

There is strong evidence that on several occasions codefendant Browne and others did represent that Day was a member of the CAP, and that on the day in question when there was an effort to obtain a mission number there were statements that all in the group which had assembled, including Day, were members. In fact, the original telephone call by Browne contained the message, "We have a mission," which indicated a CAP endeavor. Appellant testifies that he relied on these and prior representations and would not have gone to the scene if he had known he was not a member. Although Day now contends that Browne and others knowingly and wilfully misrepresented his status to him and although he may have been convinced that he was included as a member, the evidence demands a finding that he has not presented the elements of an action in fraud and deceit. The five elements necessary to be shown are that the misrepresentation or falsehood was knowingly made, that it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Marrale v. Gwinnett Place Ford, No. A04A2341.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 2005
    ...was to deceive another and induce him to act, that he did act upon it and that he was injured as a result." Day v. Randolph, 159 Ga.App. 474, 475, 283 S.E.2d 687 (1981). Pretermitting whether Marrale could establish these elements, this case is controlled by our decision in Owens v. Union C......
  • Coffee Butler Service, Inc. v. Sacha
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 1993
    ...scienter, that is, that the false statement was knowingly made with false design, there can be no recovery....' Day v. Randolph, 159 Ga.App. 474, 475 (283 S.E.2d 687) (1981)." McCrimmon v. Tandy Corp., 202 Ga.App. 233, 234(1), 414 S.E.2d 15 While the ten-volume record is replete with refere......
  • FDL, Inc. v. Simmons Company, Cause No. IP01-1872-C-T/K (S.D. Ind. 11/17/2003), Cause No. IP01-1872-C-T/K.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • November 17, 2003
    ...recovery." Coffee Butler Serv., Inc. v. Sacha, 430 S.E.2d 149, 151 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (quotation omitted); see also Day v. Randolph, 283 S.E.2d 687, 688 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981) ("An innocent misstatement may amount to negligence but it is not fraud."). Simmons claims that Scott White, the only......
  • In re E.Spire Communications, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Delaware
    • May 9, 2003
    ...of scienter, that is, that the false statement was knowingly made with false design, there can be no recovery." Day v. Randolph, 159 Ga.App. 474, 475, 283 S.E.2d 687, 688 (1981). The evidence submitted at trial does not warrant a finding of fraud on the part of Morris. There was testimony t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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