Gosser v. Diplomat Restaurant, Inc., 46500
Decision Date | 03 March 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 46500,No. 2,46500,2 |
Citation | 188 S.E.2d 412,125 Ga.App. 620 |
Parties | Dale E. GOSSER v. The DIPLOMAT RESTAURANT, INC., et al |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The third-party complaint was not subject to dismissal on any of the grounds urged against it. Hence, the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion to dismiss.
Norman J. Rubin filed a complaint in the Fulton Superior Court against the Diplomat Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a The Diplomat (hereinafter referred to as the Diplomat), and John Doe et al. The complaint alleged: that the plaintiff on January 22, 1969 was present as a business invitee in the Diplomat's place of business; that he was seated next to a table occupied by John Doe who was drunk, quarrelsome and insulting to other guests; that the Diplomat knew or should have known this in the exercise of ordinary care; that the Diplomat knew or should have known that John Doe was a danger from whom other guests required protection, but the Diplomat permitted John Doe to enter and remain on the premises and drink more alcoholic beverages; that the Diplomat was benefitting from the alcoholic consumption and was therefore ignoring the hazard and the well being of its other guests; that John Doe violently battered the plaintiff with his fists causing serious injuries.
The complaint further alleged: that the Diplomat made no attempt to stop the assault and battery despite the plaintiff's request for assistance prior to the assault and his repeated calls for help, all of which took place in view of a number of the Diplomat's employees and agents; that John Doe escaped apprehension because the Diplomat failed to call the police at plaintiff's request; that the Diplomat has failed and refused the plaintiff's request to obtain the true identity of John Doe; that the plaintiff has suffered great pain and will continue to suffer intermittent pain and loss of ability to work and labor as a result of the malicious assault and battery herein described; that the plaintiff has been hindered and prevented from performing his normal business and family duties and has incurred substantial medical expenses as a result of the injuries; that the plaintiff was greatly embarrassed by reason of the assault being inflicted upon him in a public restaurant in the presence of friends and other people. One paragraph of the complaint set out that plaintiff's reputation at work and among his associates had been hurt because he had been involved in a public and alcoholic brawl. The complaint also alleged that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from all defendants, jointly and severally, for actual damages, exemplary damages and his expenses incurred in the litigation. The plaintiff sought recovery against the defendants both jointly and severally.
The Diplomat answered the plaintiff's complaint and denied the substantial allegations thereof. Subsequently a third-party complaint was filed by the Diplomat which designated as third-party defendant Dale E. Gosser as to whom service was perfected under the Long Arm Statute, Code Ann. § 24-113.1 et seq. (Ga.L.1966, p. 343; 1968, p. 1419; 1970, p. 443). The third-party complaint set out that Dale E. Gosser is the John Doe referred to in the defendant's complaint; that if it should be determined that the Diplomat is liable to the plaintiff that the Diplomat is entitled to contribution for one-half of the recovery pursuant to Code Ann. § 105-2012 (Ga.L.1966, p. 433).
Gosser, the third-party defendant, filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint on the grounds that: the court has no jurisdiction since Code Ann. § 24-113.1 does not apply to third-party defendants because the third-party plaintiff did not have a cause of action against the third-party defendant unless and until a verdict and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff against the defendant/third-party plaintiff; that a portion of the complaint against the defendant/third-party plaintiff is for defamation of character which is expressly excluded from Code Ann. § 24-113.1(b); that the third-party complaint discloses on its face that there is no joint action or joint concert of third-party defendant and third-party plaintiff.
The trial judge overruled the third-party defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint and certified that such ruling be subject to review. The trial judge subsequently certified to this court that in his ruling he considered nothing outside the pleadings but dealt with the motion solely as a motion to dismiss.
Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Palmer H. Ansley, Atlanta, for appellant.
James H. Weeks, R. Lawrence Ashe, Jr., Atlanta, for appellees.
1. In F. H. Ross & Co. v. White, 224 Ga. 324, 161 S.E.2d 857, the Supreme Court has held that the right of contribution from a joint tortfeasor not sued in the action is a substantive right. In discussing Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Practice (substantially equivalent to our own CPA § 14), it has been pointed out: 3 Moore, Federal Practice 574, § 14.11. The obvious intendment of the language contained in Code Ann. § 81A-114 (Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 627; 1969, p. 979) is to allow the impleading of one 'who is or may be liable to him (the defendant) for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him.' (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, the effect of impleader practice is to accelerate liability. 3 Moore, Federal Practice, 531, 551, §§ 14.08, 14.10.
We can find no valid basis, in a case of this nature, to disallow the utilization of the Long Arm Statute (Code Ann. § 24-113.1 et seq.) in a third-party claim. See for example, Verner v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co., D.C., 258 F.Supp. 169, 170; Agrashell, Inc. v. Bernard Sirotta Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Higginbotham v. Ford Motor Co.
...not prevent them from being joint tortfeasors. Isom v. Schettino, 129 Ga.App. 73, 199 S.E.2d 89 (1973); Gosser v. Diplomat Restaurant, Inc., 125 Ga.App. 620, 188 S.E.2d 412 (1972); Piller v. Hanger Cab Co., 115 Ga.App. 260, 154 S.E.2d 420 (1967). Although Georgia has not yet directed its at......
-
Union Camp Corp. v. Helmy, 45285
...defendant or defendants could join the remaining joint tort-feasors in the plaintiff's action. See e.g., Gosser v. Diplomat Restaurant, Inc., 125 Ga.App. 620, 188 S.E.2d 412 (1972); Thornhill v. Bullock, 118 Ga.App. 186(1), 162 S.E.2d 886 (1968); So. Ry. v. Allen, 88 Ga.App. 435(3), 77 S.E.......
-
Gilson v. Mitchell
...dictum.' Stone's Independent Oil Distributors v. Bailey, 122 Ga.App. 294, 299, 176 S.E.2d 613, 618. Accord, Gosser v. The Diplomat Restaurant, Inc., 125 Ga.App. 620, 188 S.E.2d 412 (a drunken restaurant guest who hit plaintiff-guest, and the restaurant failing to restrain the drunk, held jo......
-
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Cobb County, Ga., Civ. A. No. C80-1411A.
...negligence but relies upon McMichael v. Georgia Power Co., 133 Ga.App. 593, 211 S.E.2d 632 (1974), and Gosser v. Diplomat Restaurant, Inc., 125 Ga.App. 620, 188 S.E.2d 412 (1972), for his conclusion. This Court's reading of those cases convinces the Court that Mr. Simpson was correct in his......