Glover v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 27575
| Decision Date | 04 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 27575,27575 |
| Citation | 229 Ga. 874,195 S.E.2d 11 |
| Parties | Carlton Henry GLOVER v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert John White, C. Lawrence Jewett, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Matthew H. Patton, John T. Carssow, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
A collision occurred between a vehicle owned by Mrs. Julia H. Glover and being operated by her husband, Carlton Henry Glover, and a truck owned by and being operated by an employee of Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company in the course of its business. An agreement was reached as to the damage to Mrs. Glover's automobile and a release as to property damage to the automobile executed by both Mr. and Mrs. Glover. Thereafter, Carlton Henry Glover filed an action to recover for his personal injuries and the release was pleaded as a defense. By amendment to the original complaint the plaintiff sought to have the release set aside. Depositions were taken and a motion for summary judgment based upon such depositions was filed by the defendants. The trial court sustained the motion for summary judgment and the present appeal was filed. The sole enumeration of error complains of the grant of the summary judgment. Held:
1. Where a release is general, i.e. one that releases the alleged tortfeasor from liability for all claims arising out of an occurrence, in the absence of fraud such release will bar any cause of action by the person executing such release. See Gregory v. Schnurstein, 212 Ga. 497, 93 S.E.2d 680. Yet under James v. Tarpley, 209 Ga. 421(1), 73 S.E.2d 188, a release that by its terms relates solely to designated property damage and does not include a complete release may be executed and will be enforced according to its terms.
2. The release in the case sub judice released the defendants '. . . from any and all present and future claims for property damage to a 1963 Thunderbird arising out of an accident involving company vehicle No. G6-1587-20, which occurred on or about the 14th day of August, 1967 . . .' (emphasis supplied). The release did not contain any terms which could be deemed as a general release of all claims or of any claim except the property damage to the automobile.
3. Although the plaintiff was not entitled to have the release set aside, the judgment of the trial court sustaining the defendant's motion for summary judgment based upon the ground that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re EI du Pont de Nemours and Co.
...Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 90 L.Ed. 1447 (1946). See also Glover v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 229 Ga. 874, 195 S.E.2d 11 (1972) (release only effective absent fraud). Further, the conduct alleged in the petition and in the memorandum/a......
-
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
...interpreted as a release of all claims are not persuasive to the Court. The following language from Glover v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 229 Ga. 874, 195 S.E.2d 11 (1972) is quoted to support the proposition that the Kaiser-Weatherly settlement agreement bars all claims in......
-
Watson v. Union Camp Corp., CV493-124.
...at 1.) Georgia courts have interpreted "all claims" language broadly to include unknown conduct. See Glover v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 229 Ga. 874, 195 S.E.2d 11, 11-12 (1972) (contrasting general release, barring any cause of action, with "a release that by its terms relates solely ......
-
Singletary v. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc.
...of causes of action exemplified by Gregory v. Schnurstein, 212 Ga. 497, 93 S.E.2d 680 (1956), overruled by Glover v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 229 Ga. 874, 195 S.E.2d 11 (1972). "A single wrongful or negligent act, which injures both one's person and his property, gives but a single ca......