Thomaston v. Fort Wayne Pools, Inc.
Decision Date | 05 January 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 73564,73564 |
Citation | 352 S.E.2d 794,181 Ga.App. 541 |
Parties | , 3 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 547 THOMASTON v. FORT WAYNE POOLS, INC. et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joseph R. Neal, Jack E. Boone, Jr., Augusta, for appellant.
Charles C. Stebbins III, James W. Purcell, Michael N. Annis, Neal W. Dickert, William B. Warlick, Augusta, for appellees.
The appellant was seriously injured when he dove into the shallow end of a swimming pool at the home of his uncle and aunt. He filed the present action against the appellees, who are the manufacturer of the kit from which the pool was constructed, the distributor of the kit, and the supplier of the vermiculite used in the pool's foundation, alleging that the design and construction of the pool were defective. Prior to filing suit, the appellant had settled a claim against his aunt and uncle and their insurance carrier based on the same injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment to the appellees based on the appellant's execution of a "Release and Indemnity Agreement" in connection with that settlement.
The appellant contends on appeal that his claims are not barred by the release because it is, in reality, a covenant not to sue, and that even if the document is construed as a release, parol evidence is admissible to show that the parties did not intend for it to cover the appellees in this action. He further contends that the release is the product of a mutual mistake and that even if it operates as a bar to further recovery by him in tort, it does not operate to bar his claim for breach of implied warranty against the manufacturer of the pool kit. Held:
1. Menendez v. Perishable Distributors, 254 Ga. 300, 301, 329 S.E.2d 149 (1985). See also Maxey v. Hosp. Auth. of Gwinnett County, 245 Ga. 480, 482, 265 S.E.2d 779 (1980).
There is nothing in the "Release and Indemnity Agreement" to suggest that appellant intended to retain the right to proceed against any other joint tortfeasor. See Harrison v. Johnson, 161 Ga.App. 54, 55, 289 S.E.2d 287 (1982). Rather, the document in question recites that it is "for the express purpose of precluding forever any further or additional claims arising out of the aforesaid accident." Consequently, the trial court correctly concluded that the document is a release and that parol evidence was not admissible to vary its terms.
2. The appellant's contention that the appellees need not be considered joint tortfeasors with his uncle and aunt is without merit. " '[I]f 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 than a nuisance, and if a rational basis does not exist for an apportionment of the resulting damages among the various causes, then the actors are joint tortfeasors, jointly and severally liable for the full amount of plaintiff's damages, notwithstanding the absence of voluntary intentional concert of action.' " Zimmerman's, Inc. v. McDonough Constr. Co., 240 Ga. 317, 320, 240 S.E.2d 864 (1977). Compare Parks v. Palmer, 151 Ga.App. 468(2), 260 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Smith v. McLendon, 142 Ga.App. 608, 236 S.E.2d 692 (1977). It is apparent from the record in this case that appellant's injury was single and indivisible, and that no rational basis exists for apportionment of the resulting damages. Appellant's reliance on Williams v. Physicians, etc., Community Hosp., 249 Ga. 588, 292 S.E.2d 705 (1982), is misplaced in that that case involved successive tortfeasors and successive injuries.
3. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watson v. Union Camp Corp., CV493-124.
...contracts also govern releases. U.S. Anchor Mfg. v. Rule Indus., 264 Ga. 295, 443 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1994); Thomaston v. Fort Wayne Pools, 181 Ga. App. 541, 352 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1987). In Georgia, the interpretation of a contract is ordinarily a question of law. O.C.G.A. § 13-2-1; Sakas v. Je......
-
City of Lawrenceville v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc.
...amount of the account stated. The power in equity to relieve mistakes should be exercised with caution. Thomaston v. Fort Wayne Pools, Inc., 181 Ga.App. 541, 542, 352 S.E.2d 794 (1987). Even if there is a unilateral mistake, a party may not seek reformation of an account or contract if reas......
-
Assoc. Mechanical Contract. v. Martin K. Eby Const.
...purports to relinquish rights is subject to the same rules of construction as govern ordinary contracts. Thomaston v. Fort Wayne Pools, Inc., 181 Ga.App. 541, 352 S.E.2d 794 (1987). The Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of the "actual value" language as foreclosing any additional claims by ......
-
Costanzo v. Jones, A91A0384
...of both parties. A. J. Concrete Pumping v. Richard O'Brien Equip. Sales, 256 Ga. 795, 796(1), 353 S.E.2d 496; Thomaston v. Fort Wayne Pools, 181 Ga.App. 541, 542(3), 352 S.E.2d 794. To pierce defendant's reformation defense, plaintiff presented evidence that any mistake was unilateral since......