Humana, Inc. v. Davis, S91A0802
| Decision Date | 04 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. S91A0802,S91A0802 |
| Citation | 261 Ga. 514,407 S.E.2d 725 |
| Parties | HUMANA, INC. v. DAVIS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Warren C. Fortson, Beth H. Paradies, Denise C. Leggett, Fortson & White, Atlanta, for Humana, Inc.
William C. Lanham, Clark H. McGehee, Lanham & McGehee, William L. Ballard, Allen & Ballard, Hezekiah Sistrunk, Jr., Love & Willingham, Atlanta, for Davis et al.
This appeal stems from the trial court's denial of a motion for summary judgment filed by appellant, Humana, Inc. (Humana), in the wrongful death action brought by the appellees, Robert and Jean Davis. Humana sought and was granted an interlocutory appeal. 1 We now affirm the trial court's denial of Humana's motion for summary judgment.
The Davises sued numerous defendants, including Humana and Drs. Johnson and Kendall, for the alleged wrongful death of their daughter. The two doctors had treated the Davises' daughter at an outpatient health clinic owned by Humana. The Davises contended, inter alia, that the doctors were the apparent agents of Humana because Humana held the doctors out as its own, and that Humana thus was vicariously responsible for the alleged negligence of the doctors.
Subsequently, Drs. Johnson and Kendall filed a motion for summary judgment. They raised a statute of limitation defense and contended, based on their own affidavits, they had not been negligent in providing care to the Davises' daughter. The Davises opposed the motion, relying, inter alia, on the deposition of a Dr. Gonzales to rebut the affidavits of Drs. Johnson and Kendall regarding their negligence. Humana did not participate in this motion for summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Drs. Johnson and Kendall on both grounds of their motion. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying solely on the statute of limitation issue. Davis v. Johnson, 193 Ga.App. 19, 386 S.E.2d 900 (1989).
Thereafter, Humana moved for summary judgment on three grounds. First, Humana contended that the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the doctors had conclusively established the doctors were not negligent in treating the Davises' daughter, and that, as its liability was premised solely upon its responsibility for any negligence of Drs. Johnson and Kendall, res judicata barred the action against it. Second, Humana contended that, even if the doctors' non-negligence had not been conclusively established by the prior grant of summary judgment, the record established, without factual dispute, that the doctors had not been negligent. Third, Humana contended that, even if the doctors were negligent, it could not be held liable because the doctors were not the agents of Humana.
The Davises opposed the motion, and submitted the affidavit of a Dr. Bussey regarding the care of Drs. Johnson and Kendall.
The trial court denied Humana's motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals granted Humana's application for interlocutory appeal. Humana raised the same three issues on appeal that it had raised in the trial court. The Court of Appeals became deadlocked regarding the disposition of the appeal, and transferred the appeal here.
1. We first address Humana's contention it is entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. Humana contends that the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Drs. Johnson and Kendall on the ground they were not negligent conclusively established the non-negligence of the doctors, and that, as the Davises' action against it is dependent on a finding that the doctors were negligent, the Davises' action is barred. 2 We conclude that the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the doctors did not conclusively establish the non-negligence of the doctors, and that res judicata is thus not a bar to the Davises' action against Humana.
For res judicata to bar the Davises' action against Humana, the negligence of the doctors must have been the subject of a final adjudication in the prior judgment. See McCracken v. City of College Park, 259 Ga. 490, 491, 384 S.E.2d 648 (1989)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samara v. Matar
...(Colo. 2010) 222 P.3d 303, 309 ; Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Rytman (1997) 241 Conn. 24, 694 A.2d 1246, 1254 ; Humana, Inc. v. Davis (1991) 261 Ga. 514, 407 S.E.2d 725, 726-727 ; but see, e.g., Markoff v. New York Life Ins. Co (9th Cir. 1976) 530 F.2d 841, 842 [attempting to discern Nevada law......
-
Waldroup v. Greene County Hosp. Authority
...of limitation is certainly an adjudication on the merits, it is not conclusive on the issue of negligence. Humana, Inc. v. Davis, 261 Ga. 514, 515, 407 S.E.2d 725 (1991). Likewise, even though a prior consent judgment between the parties also serves as an adjudication on the merits, it is n......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Karan, Inc.
...of limitations is certainly an adjudication on the merits, it is not conclusive on the issue of negligence. Humana Inc. v. Davis, 261 Ga. 514, 515, 407 S.E.2d 725 (1991). Likewise, even though a prior consent judgment between the parties also serves as an adjudication on the merits, it is n......
-
Weaver v. NORTH GEORGIA RESA, A99A0646.
...speech did not address matters of public concern and thus was not constitutionally protected. In the case of Humana, Inc. v. Davis, 261 Ga. 514, 515(1), 407 S.E.2d 725 (1991), the Supreme Court held if a trial court bases its judgment on alternative grounds, and an appellate court affirms t......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby and Jason Crawford
...See Lutz v. Foran, 262 Ga. 819, 824, 427 S.E.2d 248, 252 (1993). 117. 262 Ga. at 824, 427 S.E.2d at 252. 118. See Humana, Inc. v. Davis, 261 Ga. 514, 407 S.E.2d 725 (1991) (Actual litigation of statute of limitations defense on the merits as to one defendant did not preclude finding that de......