Guzman v. Link

• Citation: 354 Ga.App. 463,841 S.E.2d 203
• Decision Date: 13 March 2020
• Docket Number: A19A1651
• Parties: GUZMAN et al. v. LINK.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

354 Ga.App. 463

841 S.E.2d 203

GUZMAN et al.

v.LINK.

A19A1651

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 13, 2020

The Summerville Firm, J. Darren Summerville, Angela R. Fox, Maxwell K. Thelen ; Shiver Hamilton, Jeffrey P. Shiver, Alan J. Hamilton, Margaret E. Randels, R. Scott Campbell ; The Gumprecht Law Firm, Michael E. Gumprecht, for appellants.

Bovis Kyle Burch & Medlin, Steven J. Kyle, Charles M. Medlin, W. Randal Bryant, Alan H. Meincke, for appellee.

McMillian, Presiding Judge.

After an automobile accident involving a car driven by Tatum Guzman and a vehicle driven by Carson Link, which resulted in the death of Tatum's father, Paul Guzman,¹ a passenger in the Guzman car, Appellant Burgundy Guzman² filed suit against Link for wrongful death. She appeals the trial court's order on cross-motions for partial summary judgment addressing Link's affirmative defense under Georgia's family purpose doctrine. Because we find that the family purpose doctrine may not be used defensively to impute liability for any negligence by Tatum to Paul so as to bar or reduce any recovery arising from his death, we reverse both the denial of Burgundy's motion for partial summary judgment and the grant of Link's cross-motion on that issue. Further, because we find that genuine issues of fact remain as to whether the family purpose doctrine applied to the Guzman car, we reverse the grant of Link's cross-motion and affirm the denial of Burgundy's motion to the extent that the motions sought relief on that ground.

The accident in this case occurred on November 27, 2016, when the Guzman car, with Tatum at the wheel, approached an intersection from the east and began to turn left as the light turned yellow. At around the same time, Link's vehicle was approaching the same intersection from the west as the light turned yellow, and it continued into the intersection. It is undisputed that Link's vehicle struck the passenger side of the Guzman car where Paul was seated in the back seat, resulting in his death, although the parties dispute the sequence of events leading up to, and who caused, the collision.

Several months later, on February 10, 2017, Burgundy filed this wrongful death action against Link in her capacities as Paul's surviving spouse and as the administrator of his estate. In his answer to Burgundy's complaint, Link asserted the following affirmative defense:

At all times material hereto, the vehicle operated by [Tatum] was owned by [Paul] and [Tatum] was operating said vehicle with his permission and as a member of his household. The vehicle being driven by [Tatum] at the time of the motor vehicle collision was a family purpose vehicle and therefore, [Tatum] was driving said automobile as the agent of her father, [Paul]. Therefore the Estate of PAUL GUZMAN is vicariously liable for the negligence of [Tatum] which was the proximate cause of the motor vehicle collision.³

Link also asserted a counterclaim seeking recovery for damages he suffered in the accident based on Tatum's negligence, which he alleged caused the accident and for which he alleged Paul was liable under the family purpose doctrine, as well as damages for Paul's negligent entrustment of the Guzman car to Tatum.

Following discovery, Burgundy moved for partial summary judgment on Link's fourth affirmative defense on the ground that the family purpose doctrine is a "plaintiff's rule[,]" and thus "the negligence of a family-member driver may not be imputed to an owner-passenger under the family-purpose doctrine in an action against a third-party to recover for the owner-passenger's injuries." Link filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the same issue, asserting that any negligence by Tatum in operating the car owned by Paul should be imputed to Paul and his estate under the family purpose doctrine and applied to limit or bar Burgundy's claims as a matter of law. Link's briefing on the issue confined the analysis to the application of the family purpose doctrine as a bar to Burgundy's recovery on her claims and did not seek summary judgment as to whether Link could rely on the family purpose doctrine in his counterclaim against Paul's estate for Link's own damages.⁴

At the hearing on the parties’ cross-motions, however, the trial court sua sponte raised the issue of whether Link could rely on the family purpose doctrine in his counterclaim and later entered an order granting Link's motion for partial summary judgment and denying Burgundy's motion. In its order, the trial court identified two issues for adjudication: (1) "whether the Family Purpose Doctrine may be utilized solely, as Plaintiff describes it, ‘as a sword’ to recover from a defendant and not a ‘shield’ for defendant to avoid liability"; and (2) "whether the 2014 Kia Soul registered to Paul Guzman, but operated by Tatum Guzman, falls under the ambit of the Family Purpose Doctrine, making the Estate of Paul Guzman vicariously liable to Carsten Link for damages." The trial court then analyzed the law solely in the context of Link's counterclaim against Paul's Estate, stating that "[t]he core issue is whether the state's modified comparative negligence scheme applies in a counterclaim that invokes the Family Purpose Doctrine[.]" The court concluded that the doctrine "may be used in a counterclaim" as a means of offsetting the plaintiff's claimed damages, explaining that it "is neither a ‘sword’ or a ‘shield[,]’ but a ‘swinging door’ that may be utilized by all sides of an action to determine agency, and fix liability." The trial court then held that Link's "counterclaim [could] proceed and [Burgundy's] assertion that the Family Purpose Doctrine may be utilized only by plaintiffs is unsupported by the statutory law of Georgia." With regard to the second issue, the trial court found as a matter of law that the facts of record established all the elements of the family purpose doctrine, that the family purpose doctrine applied to the Guzman car, and "that Paul Guzman is vicariously liable for his own death." This appeal followed.

1. We turn first to Link's motion to dismiss this appeal on jurisdictional grounds, because "[t]his Court has a duty to inquire into its jurisdiction to entertain each appeal." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) City of Dublin School Dist. v. MMT Holdings, LLC , 351 Ga. App. 112, 114, 830 S.E.2d 487 (2019).

OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) provides that "[a] summary judgment may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damage." Link's motion sought a determination of the merits of his affirmative defense asserting that liability should be imputed from Tatum to Paul under the family purpose doctrine for purposes of reducing or barring Burgundy's claimed damages, and, in fact, the trial court upheld that affirmative defense, finding as a matter of law that the doctrine applied. Therefore, the trial court properly considered Link's motion as one for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, even though factual issues relating to apportionment of damages remained for the jury's consideration under OCGA § 51-12-33. See also First Christ Holiness Church, Inc. v. Owens Temple First Christ Holiness Church, Inc. , 282 Ga. 883, 885, 655 S.E.2d 605 (2008) ("A summary judgment is a judgment on the merits of the underlying claims or defenses .") (citations omitted; emphasis supplied). Compare Forest City Gun Club v. Chatham County , 280 Ga. App. 219, 221-222, 633 S.E.2d 623 (2006) (ruling on the proper method of valuation in a condemnation case was not a grant of partial summary judgment because it did not reach "the merits of any element of damage"; rather, motion was more in the nature of a motion in limine); St. Francis Hosp., Inc. v. Patton , 228 Ga. App. 544, 545 (1), 492 S.E.2d 303 (1997) (ruling on a motion seeking a factual determination that the hospital had breached its by-laws was not a partial summary judgment, because it did not result in a ruling on liability entitling doctor to recover on his claim asserting wrongful termination of his hospital privileges).

Accordingly, Burgundy's direct appeal of the trial court's ruling was authorized under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h),⁵ and Link's motion to dismiss is denied.

2. We turn now to the merits of the issue raised in the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment addressing the family purpose doctrine: specifically, whether the family purpose doctrine can be used by a defendant to impute the negligence of the child onto the plaintiff-parent.

We start our analysis by setting out the principles under which a parent can be made liable for the torts of their minor children. "It is well settled in this state that parents are not liable in damages for the torts of their minor children merely because of the parent-child relationship." (Citation omitted.) Smith v. Brooks , 247 Ga. App. 831, 832, 545 S.E.2d 135 (2001). See also Phillips v. Dixon , 236 Ga. 271, 272, 223 S.E.2d 678 (1976) ("[A] parent generally is not liable for the torts of a child[.]"); Kitchens v. Harris , 305 Ga. App. 799, 800, 701 S.E.2d 207 (2010) (same). Rather, OCGA § 51-2-2, a version of which has appeared in every Georgia code since 1863,⁶ sets out the circumstances under which a parent is liable for a child's torts, providing:

Every person shall be liable for torts committed by his wife,⁷ his child, or his servant by his command or in the prosecution and within the scope of his business, whether the same are committed by negligence or voluntarily.

In the context of automobiles, Georgia courts have applied the principle espoused in this statute to hold that "[w]hether or not the owner of an automobile is liable for damage caused by it which results from the negligence of the person operating it depends upon whether the person driving it was the agent or servant of the owner and engaged upon the business of the owner at the time the negligence occurred." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Samples v. Shaw , 47 Ga. App....