Stapleton v. Palmore, 63289
Decision Date | 19 May 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 63289,63289 |
Citation | 162 Ga.App. 525,291 S.E.2d 445 |
Parties | STAPLETON v. PALMORE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William H. Pinson, Jr., Savannah, for appellant.
Don C. Keenan, Atlanta, Ed Barham, Valdosta, Gould B. Hagler, Thomas R. Burnside, Jr., James B. Wall, O. Torbit Ivey, Jr., Augusta, for amicus curiae.
Charles R. Ashman, Savannah, for appellee.
We granted interlocutory appeal in this case to determine whether a defendant who won a verdict when sued by an injured party (see Palmore v. Stapleton, 157 Ga.App. 691, 278 S.E.2d 476) is entitled to summary judgment in a subsequent suit by the party's spouse for loss of consortium based on the same injuries occasioned by the same accident.
We conclude that a subsequent suit for loss of consortium is not barred by an earlier verdict for the defendant on the question of liability for the injured party's injuries. We are controlled by the following cases, where we held that the spouse is neither privy nor party to the injured plaintiff's cause of action insofar as consortium rights are concerned, and thus under principles of res judicata is not barred by a prior verdict in an earlier trial in favor of the defendant as to liability for tort to the injured party: Deese v. Parks, 157 Ga.App. 116, 276 S.E.2d 269; Rutland v. Fuels, 135 Ga.App. 143, 217 S.E.2d 167; Armstrong Furn. Co. v. Nickle, 110 Ga.App. 686, 140 S.E.2d 72; Russ Transport v. Jones, 104 Ga.App. 612, 122 S.E.2d 282; Owens v. Williams, 87 Ga.App. 238, 73 S.E.2d 512; and Blakewood v. Yellow Cab Co. of Savannah, 61 Ga.App. 149, 6 S.E.2d 126. Contra, Bray v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 103 Ga.App. 783, 120 S.E.2d 628; and see Smith v. Tri-State Culvert Mfg. Co., 126 Ga.App. 508, 191 S.E.2d 92; Hightower v. Landrum, 109 Ga.App. 510, 136 S.E.2d 425; see also Ross v. Central R., etc., Co., 59 Ga. 299; and Jones v. Beasley, 476 F.Supp. 116 (M.D.Ga.); Turner v. Southern R. Co., 437 F.2d 1352; Collins v. Seaboard, etc., Co., 516 F.Supp. 31. The rule is different where the injured person and the spouse combine their separate suits in one trial, for in that case we have said that where one jury has heard the same evidence on the same issue it cannot render inconsistent verdicts as might two separate juries. Burnett v. Doster, 144 Ga.App. 443, 241 S.E.2d 319; Clark v. Wright, 137 Ga.App. 720, 224 S.E.2d 825; Jarrett v. Parker, 135 Ga.App. 195, 217 S.E.2d 337; White v. Hammond, 129 Ga.App. 408, 199 S.E.2d 809; and see Douberly v. Okefenokee, etc., Corp., 146 Ga.App. 568, 246 S.E.2d 708. On the subject of consortium cases, see also Stone Mountain Memorial Assn. v. Herrington, 225 Ga. 746, 749, 171 S.E.2d 521.
In one of the appeal briefs in this case it is asserted: We find, however, that such a statutory provision already exists. It would seem that Code Ann. § 81A-119(a) would have a clear and direct application to personal injury and consortium cases, where it provides: However, we are unable to apply this code section to personal injury and consortium cases, since in 1964 the legislature, apparently being unimpressed with the logic of Pinkerton, etc., Agency v. Stevens, 108 Ga.App. 159, 161-162, 132 S.E.2d 119, made actions for loss of consortium subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Code Ann. § 3-1004. Hence, however clearly Code Ann. § 81A-119 might seem to apply to personal injury and consortium cases, we are not authorized to force joinder of causes of action having different statutes of limitation. Moreover, according to Code Ann. § 81A-119(b), persons who fit the description in Code Ann. § 81A-119(a), just quoted, are "thus... regarded as indispensable," but the defendant is not entitled to any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee v. Colorado Dept. of Health
...the primary tortfeasor sued in a consortium claim from impleading the spouse who suffered the personal injuries. See Stapleton, 162 Ga.App. 525, 291 S.E.2d 445; Lantis, 95 Cal.App.3d 152, 157 Cal.Rptr. 22. Placing one spouse in an adversarial relationship to the other over the latter's clai......
-
McCoy v. Colonial Baking Co., Inc.
...not liable for the [wife's] injury." Winkles v. Thomas, 164 Ga.App. 715, 715, 298 S.E.2d 260, 261 (1982) (quoting Stapleton v. Palmore, 162 Ga.App. 525, 527, 291 S.E.2d 445)). 4) New Hampshire--"A wife's cause of action for loss of consortium is created by statute as a separate and distinct......
-
Blagg v. Illinois F.W.D. Truck
...Seaward Construction Co. (1st Cir.1977), 555 F.2d 1; Lantis v. Condon (1979), 95 Cal.App.3d 152, 157 Cal.Rptr. 22; Stapleton v. Palmore (1982), 162 Ga.App. 525, 291 S.E.2d 445; Feltch v. General Rental Co. (1981), 383 Mass. 603, 421 N.E.2d In Lee v. Colorado Department of Health (Colo.1986)......
-
Mueller v. J. C. Penney Co.
...876 (finding identity of parties between husband and wife in attempt to bring subsequent consortium action) with Stapleton v. Palmore (Ga.1982) 162 Ga.App. 525, 291 S.E.2d 445 (no privity).16 See footnote 1 ante.* Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial ...