Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Lunsford
| Decision Date | 08 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 20917,20917 |
| Citation | 116 S.E.2d 232,216 Ga. 289 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO. et al. v. Edna B. LUNSFORD. |
Herman Heyman, Heyman, Abram & Young, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Hewlett, Hewlett & Wall, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Crenshaw, Hansell, Ware, Brandon & Dorsey, Atlanta, John B. Miller, Savannah, Bloch, Hall Goover & Hawkins, Macon, Troutman, Same, Schroder & Lockerman, Atlanta, for parties at interest.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This case came to the Supreme Court on certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The trial judge had dismissed the plaintiff's petition on a general demurrer, which questioned its sufficiency to state a cause of action for damages flowing from an alleged loss of the right of consortium. The Court of Appeals reversed that ruling. See Lunsford v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 101 Ga.App. 374, 114 S.E.2d 310. Hence the only question which is presented to this court for decision is whether a wife may sue for loss of consortium occasioned by an injury which her husband, an interstate employee of a railroad company, sustained in consequence of his employer's negligence as against the defendants' contention that Congress, in passing the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. preempted that field of legislation and excluded all remedies which might be resorted to for injuries to employees other than those provided for by such act. In determining the question so presented, it has been settled law in this State for a long time that this court and the Court of Appeals are both bound by and must follow the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States construing applicable Federal statutes. See Clews v. Munford, 78 Ga. 476, 3 S.E. 267; Lee v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 147 Ga. 428, 430, 94 S.E. 558, 13 A.L.R. 156; Looper v. Ga. S. & F. Railway Co., 213 Ga. 279, 99 S.E.2d 101; Southern Ry. Co. v. Turner, 88 Ga.App. 49 51, 76 S.E.2d 96; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Shed, 90 Ga.App. 766, 769, 84 S.E.2d 212. And since the only question presented by the record in this case is settled and controlled adversely to the plaintiff's asserted claim for damages, and her right to maintain an action therefor by the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States in New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. Tonsellito, 244 U.S. 360, 361, 37 S.Ct. 620, 61 L.Ed. 1194; New York Central R. Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Igneri v. Cie. de Transports Oceaniques
...New York Central & H. R. R. Co. v. Tonsellito, 244 U.S. 360, 37 S.Ct. 620, 61 L.Ed. 1194 (1917); see Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Lunsford, 216 Ga. 289, 116 S.E.2d 232 (1960). If there were evidence that maritime law generally recognized a claim for negligent injury to such an intangible ri......
-
Bulloch County Hospital Authority v. Fowler
...Ga.App. 676(2), 149 S.E.2d 521; Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Prior, 142 Ga. 536, 537(2), 83 S.E. 117, supra; Cf. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Lunsford, 216 Ga. 289, 116 S.E.2d 232 holding that items of consortium are not recoverable in a statutory FELA 5. (a) In arriving at the 'full value ......
-
Bulloch County Hospital Authority v. Fowler
...676(2), 149 S.E.2d 521; Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Prior, 142 Ga. 536(2), 83 S.E. 117, supra. And compare Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Lunsford, 216 Ga. 289, 116 S.E.2d 232, where it was held that there can be no recovery for the loss of consortium in a statutory FELA case. This case, tho......
-
Seagraves v. Legg
...the wife had a cause of action for the loss of consortium of her husband. In a later Georgia case, Louisville and Nashville Ry. Co. v. Lunsford, 216 Ga. 289, 116 S.E.2d 232, it was held that a wife did not have such right, but the decision in this case involved the Federal Employers' Liabil......