Delta Finance Co. v. Ganakas, 36022
| Decision Date | 02 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 36022,36022,2 |
| Citation | 91 S.E.2d 383,93 Ga.App. 297 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | DELTA FINANCE COMPANY v. Frances C. GANAKAS, by Next Friend |
Frances Caroline Ganakas, by her mother as next friend, brought an action for damages against Delta Finance Company. The material allegations of her petition as finally amended are substantially these. The plaintiff's mother purchased a television set from the defendant on open account. The total cost of the set was charged to the mother and as the defendant did not retain title to the set, the complete title to the set vested in the plaintiff's mother and the defendant has no right, title, or interest in the set. On March 8, 1955, the defendant was engaged in the money-lending business and had in its employ Jimmy Rutland whose business as an agent of the defendant was to solicit business, make collections of money due the defendant, and repossess property for the defendant. At the time of the injuries and damages of which the plaintiff complains, the said Rutland was acting within the scope of his employment and duties for the defendant as a collector and was about the defendant's business. On that date, the defendant sent Rutland to the home of the plaintiff's mother for the purpose of collecting money which the defendant claimed was due it or for the purpose of illegally taking and repossessing the television set, although the defendant had no title whatsoever to the set. On that date the defendant sent Rutland to the plaintiff's mother's home and Rutland went there at about 8:45 a. m., while the plaintiff's mother was at work, for the purpose of collecting the money claimed to be due or of repossessing the television set. Rutland demanded of the plaintiff that she, although she was alone and unprotected, unlock the front door to the apartment where the plaintiff and her mother resided, stating to the plaintiff that he had come to remove the television set and to take it away with him. At the time the defendant sent Rutland to the plaintiff's mother's home, both the defendant and Rutland knew that the plaintiff's mother was at work and would be working until six o'clock in the evening and that the plaintiff would be alone in the home. The defendant deliberately intended to frighten the plaintiff in her mother's absence and thus to gain possession of the television set illegally. The plaintiff's mother, in order to support herself and the plaintiff, has to work from 7:30 a. m. until 6.00 p. m. every day and is necessarily away from home most of the time. As the plaintiff's mother and father are divorced and living separate and apart, the plaintiff is left alone in the apartment when she returns from school each day. The plaintiff is a child of eleven years of age and has to go alone to and from school. The plaintiff's mother had warned the plaintiff on many occasions not to unlock the door to their apartment to admit strangers when the mother was absent from home, and the plaintiff was severely frightened by the language, manner, and tone of voice of the defendant's agent, Rutland, and properly refused to unlock the door of the apartment to permit him to enter the apartment. When the plaintiff refused to unlock the front door, Rutland went to the rear of the apartment building, climbed the rear stairs and came to the rear door of the apartment in which the plaintiff and her mother resided. This door has a glass partition in the upper part. Rutland again demanded that the plaintiff unlock the door and let him enter the apartment, and when she refused to do so, Rutland shook and rattled the door in an effort to gain admission to the apartment. Rutland then wrote on a piece of paper the following words: 'If you don't unlock this door so that I can get the television set, I will get the police and have you locked up in jail.' The actions and threats of Rutland upon this occasion in attempting to collect a bill allegedly owed to the defendant by the plaintiff's mother were wilful, wanton, and malicious and the natural results or these intentional acts on the part of Rutland, the defendant's agent, caused the plaintiff severe mental suffering and wounded feelings to such an extent that she has become highly nervous, frightened and upset and is afraid to go to school or to be left alone in the apartment or to leave the apartment for fear that the defendant would carry out its threat to have her locked up in jail. As a result of the wanton, wilful, malicious, and intentional conduct of the defendant, through its agent, the plaintiff is in a constant state of fear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lyons v. Zale Jewelry Co., 42382
...v. Jernigan (Fla.1950), 45 So.2d 188, 17 A.L.R.2d 766; Stafford v. Steward (1956 Tex.Civ.App.), 295 S.W.2d 665; Delta Finance Co. v. Ganakas (1956), 93 Ga.App. 297, 91 S.E.2d 383. In American Law Institute Restatement, Torts, 1948 Supp., the rule is stated as follows: 'Sec. 46. Conduct inte......
-
Stamps v. Ford Motor Co.
...Finance & Loan Corp. v. Coots, 105 Ga.App. 849, 125 S.E.2d 689 (1962) (defendant collected a bill at gunpoint); Delta Finance Co. v. Ganakas, 93 Ga.App. 297, 91 S.E.2d 383 (1956) (defendant threatened and bullied an unattended child into allowing him access to her home so he could obtain pr......
-
Price v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...S.E.2d 445 (1985) (special knowledge held by defendant employer of plaintiff employee's multiple sclerosis); Delta Finance Co. v. Ganakas, 93 Ga. App. 297, 300, 91 S.E.2d 383 (1956) (eleven-year old girl, home alone, threatened with incarceration if she did not let defendants in to reposses......
-
Allen v. Commercial Pest Control, Inc.
...girl with calling the police and having her thrown in jail if she did not allow defendant to enter the house. Delta Finance Co. v. Ganakas, 93 Ga.App. 297, 91 S.E.2d 383 (1956). A defendant's conduct "must be so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be re......