Spence v. Hilliard, 73433
| Decision Date | 12 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 73433,73433 |
| Citation | 181 Ga.App. 767,353 S.E.2d 634 |
| Parties | SPENCE v. HILLIARD et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Tony Center, Atlanta, for appellant.
Bruce H. Beerman, Charles E. Buker III, Atlanta, for appellees.
This is a legal malpractice action in which plaintiff was represented by defendants in a previous lawsuit. Plaintiff, a landlord, was sued by his tenant. He engaged defendants to defend the tenant's suit and to pursue a counterclaim against the tenant. The counterclaim was compulsory in nature.
Defendants answered the tenant's lawsuit and they successfully defended it. Defendants did not, however, assert a counterclaim against the tenant.
In this malpractice action, plaintiff contends that as a result of defendants' negligence he was damaged to the tune of $59,273.68. The trial court took issue with plaintiff's contention. In the court's view, plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered damages. It took the position that plaintiff failed to demonstrate the amount of damages he was entitled to recover against the tenant and that, moreover, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a judgment against the tenant was collectible. Accordingly, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of defendants and plaintiff appeals. Held:
Assuming, arguendo, there was a fatal failure of proof with regard to actual damages, we must nevertheless reverse the judgment of the trial court. Nominal damages are recoverable in a legal malpractice action provided plaintiff carries the burden of proving that he was wronged. Jankowski v. Taylor, Boshop & Lee, 246 Ga. 804, 806, 273 S.E.2d 16; Kirby v. Chester, 174 Ga.App. 881, 882(1), 331 S.E.2d 915. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to submit the issue of nominal damages to the jury whether or not actual damages were proven. Bradley v. Godwin, 152 Ga.App. 782, 784(3), 264 S.E.2d 262; Avery v. K.I., Ltd., 158 Ga.App. 640, 281 S.E.2d 366. See also Miller & Meier & Assoc. v. Diedrich, 174 Ga.App. 249, 254, 329 S.E.2d 918, rev'd. in part, on other grounds, Diedrich v. Miller & Meier & Assoc., 254 Ga. 734, 334 S.E.2d 308; Tilley v. Page, 181 Ga.App. 98, 351 S.E.2d 464. It follows that it was error for the trial court to direct a verdict against plaintiff. Bradley v. Godwin, 152 Ga.App. 782, 784, 264 S.E.2d 262, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gorlin v. Halpern, s. 74025-74027
...a denial of these motions for directed verdict was proper. Bradley v. Godwin, 152 Ga.App. 782, 784(3), 264 S.E.2d 262; Spence v. Hilliard, 181 Ga.App. 767, 353 S.E.2d 634; Tilley v. Page, 181 Ga.App. 98(1), 99, 351 S.E.2d Nor did the trial court err in denying the motion in limine of defend......
-
McMann v. Mockler
...would not harm the losing litigant but instead would save the litigant time, money, and anguish. 2. Citing Spence v. Hilliard, 181 Ga. App. 767, 768, 353 S.E.2d 634 (1987), McMann asserts that she is entitled nevertheless to survive summary judgment on the thread of nominal damages, even if......
-
Whitehead v. Cuffie, s. 74543
...do we agree with appellants that Jankowski v. Taylor, Bishop & Lee, 246 Ga. 804, 806(1), 273 S.E.2d 16 (1980) and Spence v. Hilliard, 181 Ga.App. 767, 353 S.E.2d 634 (1987) support their argument. It is well-established Georgia law that before an action for a tort will lie, the plaintiff mu......
- H & H Operations, Inc. v. West Georgia Nat. Bank of Carrollton, 73326