Schimmel v. Greenway, 39938
| Decision Date | 24 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 39938,No. 3,39938,3 |
| Parties | Esther M. SCHIMMEL v. Dorine C. GREENWAY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The action here by the wife for loss of consortium of her husband through the negligence of the defendant is an action for injury to the person and is subject to the two-year statute of limitations governing such actions.
Plaintiff's action is for the loss of society, companionship and consortium caused by the defendant's alleged negligence which injured plaintiff's husband and through the injuries to the husband thus injured the plaintiff. The petition shows on its face that more than two years elapsed between the time of the negligent injuries to the plaintiff's husband and the filing of the action. The defendant demurred to the petition generally and on the further ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitation. The trial court overruled these demurrers to which the defendant excepted.
Wheeler, Robinson & Thompson, B. Carl Buice, Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.
Brannon, Brannon & Schuder, Everett C. Brannon, Jr., Gainesville, for defendant in error.
The sole question raised by this appeal is whether the statute of limitation bars the plaintiff's cause of action. Code § 3-1004 provides that actions for injuries to the person shall be brought within 2 years after the right of action accrues except for injuries to the reputation which shall be brought within one year. Under this statute, it is clear the action is barred if the injury to the plaintiff's husband which resulted in loss of consortium to the wife is an injury to the person of the plaintiff. On the other hand if the plaintiff's loss of consortium of the husband is a property right, the action was seasonably filed, as actions for injuries to property rights may be brought within 4 years of the time of the accrual of the cause of action. Code § 3-1002. In Brown v. Georgia-Tennessee Coaches, Inc., 88 Ga.App. 519, 77 S.E.2d 24, this court, for the first time, held that a wife could recover for the loss of consortium and companionship of the husband by reason of negligent injuries inflicted upon him by third persons. In reaching that conclusion this court held that the loss of services is an outworn fiction and the wife's interest in the undisturbed relation with her consort is no less worthy than that given the husband. 'Nor is any valid reason apparent for allowing her recovery for a direct interference by alienation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Com'rs of Cass County v. Nevitt
...so that a claim for loss of consortium is barred if it was filed after time ran out on the personal injury claim. Schimmel v. Greenway, (1963) 107 Ga.App. 257, 129 S.E.2d 542; Rex v. Hunter, (1958) 20 N.J. 489, 140 A.2d 753; Desjourdy v. Mesrobian, (1932) R.I., 52 R.I. 146, 158 A. 8 The app......
-
Pinkerton Nat. Detective Agency, Inc. v. Stevens
...the wife's loss of the husband's consortium, is an indirect injury to the person subject to a two year limitation. Schimmel v. Greenway, 107 Ga.App. 257, 129 S.E.2d 542, 543) The same right is involved in both instances, and it appeals to justice, logic, and common sense that no fictional d......
-
Hockett v. American Airlines, Inc.
...Gas & Ry. Co., 166 Cal. 33, 134 P. 993 (1913); Mulvey v. City of Boston, 197 Mass. 178, 83 N.E. 402 (1908); Schimmel v. Greenway, 107 Ga.App. 257, 129 S.E.2d 542 (1963). 8 Waller v. City of Chicago, supra; Desiron v. Peloza, supra; Seymour v. Union News Co., 217 F.2d 168 (7th Cir. 9 Cf. Wil......
-
Carter v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co.
...of action for loss of consortium with the injured spouse involves an injury to the uninjured spouse's person. Schimmel v. Greenway, 107 Ga.App. 257, 129 S.E.2d 542 (1963), and that an action for malicious abuse of legal process also involves an injury to the person within the meaning of Ga.......