Lackey v. McDowell
| Decision Date | 30 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. S91G1430,S91G1430 |
| Citation | 415 S.E.2d 902,262 Ga. 185 |
| Parties | LACKEY v. McDOWELL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert P. Phillips and Todd A. Hall, Friedman, Donaldson & Phillips, Savannah, for Lackey.
R. Clay Porter and Linda M. Fitzgerald, Dennis, Corry, Porter & Thornton, Atlanta, for McDowell.
We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals' holding, that the general release executed by one joint tortfeasor in this case released the other joint tortfeasor, is consistent with our decision in Posey v. Medical Center-West, Inc., 257 Ga. 55, 354 S.E.2d 417 (1987). McDowell v. Lackey, 200 Ga.App. 506, 408 S.E.2d 481 (1991). We hold that it is not and reverse.
Defendant McDowell's car slid off the road. Lackey, an EMT sent to the scene, was injured when a third party skidded into him. Lackey and his wife settled with the third party's insurance company, executing a "RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS:"
We ... release and forever discharge [third party] and any other person ... chargeable with responsibility or liability ... from all claims ... arising from any act or occurrence up to the present time, and particularly ... an accident that occurred on or about the 24th day of February, 1989, at or near 5-16 south of Augusta Avenue. [Emphasis supplied.]
The Court of Appeals held that McDowell and the third party were joint tortfeasors and recognized that under Posey:
"[a] valid release of one tortfeasor from liability for a harm, given by the injured person, does not discharge others from the same harm, unless it is agreed that it will discharge them." [Emphasis supplied.]
McDowell v. Lackey, supra, 200 Ga.App. at 507, 408 S.E.2d 481, quoting Posey v. Medical Center-West, Inc., supra, 257 Ga. at 59, 354 S.E.2d 417. The court nevertheless held that the release was clear and unambiguous on its face, that no construction was necessary, and that it could not consider any extrinsic evidence, and concluded the document operated to release any and all of Lackey's claims, including that against McDowell. Thus, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of McDowell's motion for summary judgment.
In explaining the phrase, "unless it is agreed that it will discharge them," this court said in Posey:
the intent of the parties to the release regarding its effect may be proven by external evidence as against a third party. One not a party to the release may not object to the external evidence under the parol evidence rule.
Id. at 59, 354 S.E.2d 417. 1 It follows that the Court of Appeals erred in ignoring this language from Posey and looking only within the four corners of the release. 2 Jackson v. Dyches, 200 Ga.App. 174, 175, 407 S.E.2d 126 (1991). Therefore, we must reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because the trial court's refusal to grant summary judgment to McDowell was appropriate under the Posey rule.
We take this opportunity to modify Posey, so as to provide a clearer rule: Only those parties named in the release will be discharged by that instrument. 3 This should eliminate the need to inquire as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Noonan v. Williams
...520 F.Supp. 1093, 1097 (N.D.W.Va.1981). 4 See also, e.g., Young v. State, 455 P.2d 889 (Alaska 1969); Lackey v. McDowell, 262 Ga. 185, 186 & n. 3, 415 S.E.2d 902, 903 & n. 3 (modifying Posey v. Medical Center-West, Inc., supra note 1, by adopting "specific identity" rule); Saranillio v. Sil......
-
Hansen v. Ford Motor Co.
...(holding that release must specifically name or otherwise specifically identify the persons to be discharged); Lackey v. McDowell, 262 Ga. 185, 415 S.E.2d 902, 903 & n. 3 (1992) (noting that rule that only specifically identified tortfeasors are released eliminates need to inquire into inte......
-
Davis v. Brunswick Corp.
...court of appeals found before its reversal. See McDowell v. Lackey, 200 Ga.App. 506, 408 S.E.2d 481 (1991), rev'd, Lackey v. McDowell, 262 Ga. 185, 415 S.E.2d 902 (1992). In the alternative Defendants argue that this language is ambiguous and that this defense should be allowed to go to a j......
-
Taylor v. Mooney Aircraft Corp.
...for the release. Id. Georgia courts, however, have rejected Pennsylvania's common law interpretation of releases. Lackey v. McDowell, 262 Ga. 185, 415 S.E.2d 902 (1992). Georgia law applies a bright-line test, where a third-party is not released unless specifically identified in the release......
-
Torts - Cynthia Trimboli Adams and Charles R. Adams, Iii
...App. 736, 434 S.E.2d 537 (1993). 336. Id. at 736, 434 S.E.2d at 538. 337. Id. 338. Id. at 737, 434 S.E.2d at 538. See Lackey v. McDowell, 262 Ga. 185, 415 S.E.2d 902 (1992); Posey v. Medical Center-West, Inc., 257 Ga. 55, 354 S.E.2d 417 (1987). 339. 209 Ga. App. at 737, 434 S.E.2d at 538-39......