Mitchell v. Gilson
| Decision Date | 08 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 28937,28937 |
| Parties | W. E. MITCHELL, Sr., et al. v. Irving GILSON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
T. M. Smith, Jr., Hunter S. Allen, Jr., Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Sidney F. Wheeler, George H. Connell, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.
Ross & Finch, Claude R. Ross, Charles E. McCranie, A. Russell Blank, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This case is before us by grant of the writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The question at issue is whether concert of action is required to be shown to constitute defendants as joint tortfeasors.
This suit arose out of the alleged negligence of Doctors Soria, Mitchell, Sr., and Mitchell, Jr., in connection with the use of a central venous pressure catheter inserted in Mr. Gilson's jugular vein in connection with an operation procedure. It was alleged that Dr. Soria inserted an abnormally short catheter in the vein and subsequently did not follow the patient's progress through the removal of the catheter and that the Doctors Mitchell upon discovering the strangely short catheter upon its removal by them, did not inquire of Dr. Soria concerning the length of the catheter but jumped to the conclusion that a portion of the catheter was floating in the patient's blood stream and immediately subjected him to expensive and painful procedures to locate the missing part. It was alleged that the three doctors were joint tortfeasors and that their acts together produced the single injury to the patient of needless subjection to medical procedures and mental distress. For a more detailed statement of the facts, see Gilson v. Mitchell, 131 Ga.App. 321, 205 S.E.2d 421.
The trial court ruled that the doctors were not joint tortfeasors because they were not alleged to have acted in concert, that the action against Dr. Soria and the Doctors Mitchell were two separate negligent actions requiring separate verdicts in individual amounts against the defendants. Based on this conclusion the trial court ruled that Dr. Soria would have the final closing argument to the jury since he presented no evidence.
The trial resulted in a verdict for the defendants. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed in a full court opinion, the holding being set forth in the following headnote: 'If the separate and independent acts of negligence of two or more persons or corporations combine naturally and directly to produce a single indivisible injury other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Loudermilk
...for the full amount of plaintiff’s damage." Gilson v. Mitchell , 131 Ga. App. 321, 324, 205 S.E.2d 421 (1974), aff’d , 233 Ga. 453, 454, 211 S.E.2d 744 (1975) ("We conclude that the opinion of the Court of Appeals correctly states the law of Georgia on this subject and we adopt [its] opinio......
-
Walker v. Giles, No. A05A1195.
...Co., 208 Ga.App. 134, 137(3), 430 S.E.2d 63 (1993); Gilson v. Mitchell, 131 Ga.App. 321, 327, 205 S.E.2d 421 (1974), aff'd, 233 Ga. 453, 211 S.E.2d 744 (1975). 10. Several foreign jurisdictions have reached a similar result in cases where medical malpractice by one physician was followed by......
-
King v. King
...not prove a conspiracy among the defendants for the plaintiff to recover from them as joint tortfeasors. See Mitchell v. Gilson , 233 Ga. 453, 454, 211 S.E.2d 744, 745 (1975). Given that the Defendants are allegedly joint tortfeasors, it is not clear what Ms. King's state law conspiracy claim ...
-
Higginbotham v. Ford Motor Co.
...then Georgia law is clear that they are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of plaintiff's damages. Mitchell v. Gilson, 233 Ga. 453, 211 S.E.2d 744 (1975). See Gates v. L. G. DeWitt, Inc., 5 Cir. 1976,528 F.2d 405, 413 (Georgia follows rule of no apportionment among joint In Mi......
-
An Overview of the Law of Negligence in Kansas
...amount of damages for an indivisible injury that the tortfeasor's negligence was a substantial factor in causing"); Mitchell v. Gilson, 233 Ga. 453, 211 S.E.2d 744, 745 (1975) (upholding the lower court's holding that defendant was responsible for entire harm in the event of a single indivi......
-
An Overview of the Law of Negligence in Kansas
...amount of damages for an indivisible injury that the tortfeasor's negligence was a substantial factor in causing”); Mitchell v. Gilson, 233 Ga. 453, 211 S.E.2d 744, 745 (1975) (upholding the lower court's holding that defendant was responsible for entire harm in the event of a single indivi......