Ridco Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Stiltjes
| Decision Date | 01 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. S91G0411,S91G0411 |
| Citation | 409 S.E.2d 847,261 Ga. 697 |
| Parties | RIDCO EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC. v. STILTJES, Administratrix of the Estate of Michael Lee Stiltjes, deceased. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Michael J. Gorby, Stephanie L. Scheier, Gorby, Reeves, Moraitakis & Whiteman, Atlanta, for Ridco Exterminating Co., Inc.
John R. Grimes, Lefkoff, Duncan, Grimes & Dermer, P.C., Atlanta, for Pamela Dasco Stiltjes.
Certiorari was granted in this case to view, in light of Stenger v. Grimes, 260 Ga. 838, 400 S.E.2d 318 (1991), the Court of Appeals' opinion reversing the grant of a summary judgment to appellant in the trial court. We affirm.
When this case and the wrongful death case of Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterminating Co., Inc., 192 Ga.App. 778, 386 S.E.2d 696 (1989), came on to be heard before the trial court, defendant Ridco moved to join these two cases. The trial judge denied Ridco's motion holding that the two cases were " separate and distinct causes of action which seek different damages." After the wrongful death case, Stiltjes, supra, had been disposed of and this case came on for trial, the trial court, contrary to its original ruling, granted summary judgment to defendant Ridco. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, 197 Ga.App. 852, 399 S.E.2d 708, holding for all practical purposes, the same as the trial court did in denying the appellant's motion to consolidate.
When the trial court denied the motion to consolidate, Stenger, supra, had not been decided by this Court. The Stenger case would have controlled had the trial court had the benefit of it at the time of its initial ruling. However, it did not and it would be unfair to deny the appellant her day in court because Stenger had not been decided at that time. Substantial justice dictates that Mrs. Stiltjes be granted a new trial in her present case.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except BELL, HUNT and FLETCHER, JJ., who concur in the judgment only.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stogniew v. McQueen
...Jones v. Blanton, 644 So.2d 882 (Ala.1994); Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterminating Co., 197 Ga.App. 852, 399 S.E.2d 708 (1990), aff'd, 261 Ga. 697, 409 S.E.2d 847 (1991); Molokai Homesteaders Co-op Ass'n v. Cobb, 63 Haw. 453, 629 P.2d 1134 (1981); McDermott v. Kansas Pub. Serv. Co., 238 Kan. 462, ......
-
Greene County Hosp. Authority v. Waldroup
...See Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterminating Co., 197 Ga.App. 852, 853, 399 S.E.2d 708 (1990), aff'd sub nom. Ridco Exterminating Co. v. Stiltjes, 261 Ga. 697, 409 S.E.2d 847 (1991). In the first complaint, Waldroup brought the action both individually, for loss of consortium, and in a representativ......
-
Smith v. Memorial Medical Center, Inc., A92A1669
...are legally different persons. Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterminating Co., 197 Ga.App. 852, 853, 399 S.E.2d 708 (1990), aff'd 261 Ga. 697, 409 S.E.2d 847 (1991). 1 Thus, Smith could dismiss the wrongful death claim and leave pending the estate's claim for pain and Under OCGA § 9-11-41(a) a party m......
-
Moore v. Department of Human Resources, s. A95A2376
...in privity with a party to that suit. See Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterminating Co., 197 Ga.App. 852, 399 S.E.2d 708 (1990), aff'd 261 Ga. 697, 409 S.E.2d 847 (1991). Although the Moores had the opportunity to participate in the earlier suit, it was as the representative of their adopted son rath......