Union Camp Corp. v. Helmy, 45285

• Decision Date: 04 May 1988
• Docket Number: No. 45285,45285
• Citation: 367 S.E.2d 796,258 Ga. 263
• Parties: UNION CAMP CORPORATION et al. v. HELMY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 796

367 S.E.2d 796

258 Ga. 263

UNION CAMP CORPORATION et al. v. HELMY.

No. 45285.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 4, 1988.

Reconsideration Denied June 1, 1988.

Edward T. Brennan, G. Mason White, Brennan, Harris & Rominger, Savannah, for Union Camp Corp. et al.

Michael K. Mixson, Middleton & Anderson, P.C., Adam P. Cerbone, Arnold C. Young, John E. Suthers, Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, P.C., Thomas C. Bordeaux, Jr., Jones, Bordeaux & Associates, P.C., Savannah, for James D. Helmy.

MARSHALL, Chief Justice.

This case is here upon a certified question concerning a proposition of Georgia law from a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. IV of the Georgia Constitution of 1983.

The statement of facts contained in the federal appellate court's certification order is:

"Plaintiff, James D. Helmy, filed a complaint against Union Camp Corporation and Seaboard System Railroad, Inc., seeking damages for injuries resulting from a collision between a truck driven by Helmy and a train owned and operated by Seaboard on Union Camp's premises. The case was tried before a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The jury returned a verdict finding Helmy to be 35 percent at fault, Union Camp 15 percent at fault, and Seaboard 50 percent at fault. The district court entered judgment against both Seaboard and Union Camp.

"The Supreme Court of Georgia has not addressed the issue of whether, where there are multiple defendants, a plaintiff may recover in tort against a defendant whose comparative fault is less than that of the plaintiff. Moreover, no recent opinion from the Georgia Court of Appeals has ruled on this question."

From our review of the record, it appears that the plaintiff, Helmy, charged Union Camp with negligence in maintaining defective and non-working control signals at the railroad crossing at which the collision occurred, and Seaboard was charged with negligence by reason of the train's failure to stop at the intersection, notwithstanding Seaboard's knowledge that the control signals were not working.

The question certified is: "In a negligence action under Georgia law against multiple defendants, is a plaintiff whose comparative fault exceeds that of one defendant but does not exceed that of the other defendants, entitled to a judgment against both defendants?"

In the order of the federal court certifying the foregoing question of Georgia law to us, it is noted that the only applicable case law in Georgia consists of the three decisions of the Georgia Court of Appeals in Wilson v. Harrell, 87 Ga.App. 793, 799(4), 75 S.E.2d 436 (1953); Smith v. American Oil Co., 77 Ga.App. 463, 500-503(2c), 49 S.E.2d 90 (1948); and Mishoe v. Davis, 64 Ga.App. 700, 708(19), 14 S.E.2d 187 (1941). However, as noted by the federal court, the continued viability of this line of cases has been called into question in Banks v. City of Brunswick, 529 F.Supp. 695 (S.D.Ga.1981), aff'd, 667 F.2d 97 (11th Cir.1982).

As is customarily noted in certification orders such as this, the particular phrasing of the certified question does not restrict our consideration of the problems involved and issues raised as perceived by us in our analysis of the record certified in the case. Martinez v. Rodriquez, 394 F.2d 156, 159 n. 6 (5th Cir.1968).

* * *

At the time these decisions in Wilson, Smith, and Mishoe were rendered, there was not, as now, a statutory mechanism through which the named defendant or defendants could join the remaining joint tort-feasors in the plaintiff's action. See e.g., Gosser v. Diplomat Restaurant, Inc., 125 Ga.App. 620, 188 S.E.2d 412 (1972); Thornhill v. Bullock, 118 Ga.App. 186(1), 162 S.E.2d 886 (1968); So. Ry. v. Allen, 88 Ga.App. 435(3), 77 S.E.2d 277 (1953). Thus, the number of joint tort-feasor/defendants in the suit was a matter generally within the discretion of the plaintiff. Now, CPA § 14(a), OCGA § 9-11-14(a), authorizes a third-party complaint to be filed by a joint tort-feasor who has been named as a defendant in the plaintiff's action, in order to enforce such party's right of contribution against another alleged joint tort-feasor. Evans v. Lukas, 140 Ga.App. 182, 230 S.E.2d 136 (1976); Gosser v. Diplomat Restaurant, Inc., supra. And, CPA § 49, OCGA § 9-11-49, constitutes specific statutory authority for special verdicts to be provided to the jury in which to make special written findings upon each issue of fact (see e.g., Pressley v. Jennings, 227 Ga. 366(20), 180 S.E.2d 896 (1971); Christiansen v. Robertson, 139 Ga.App. 423(5), 228 S.E.2d 350 (1976)); through this statutory mechanism, the jury's findings with respect to each joint tortfeasor's respective negligence are easily ascertainable.

In addition, the common-law rule prohibiting contribution among joint tort-feasors, which was modified by statute as early as 1863, did not, until 1966, permit an action for contribution to be maintained unless the party sought to be held liable was a party defendant in the plaintiff's case. OCGA § 51-12-32 (Code § 105-2012); Chattahoochee Brick Co. v. Braswell, 92 Ga. 631(1), 18 S.E. 1015 (1893); Dent v. King, 1 Ga. 200 (1846); Dodge Trucks, Inc. v. Wilson, 140 Ga.App. 743(1), 231 S.E.2d 818 (1976); So. Ry. v. City of Tome, 179 Ga. 449(2), 176 S.E. 7 (1934); Greyhound Lines v. Cobb Co., 681 F.2d 1327 (11th Cir.1982); Prosser, The Law of Torts, § 50 et seq., p. 505 et seq. (4th ed. 1971). ¹

However, the argument was advanced in Wilson, Smith, and Mishoe, supra, that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover, unless the plaintiff's negligence was equal to or greater than the combined negligence of all joint tort-feasors (as opposed to only the negligence of the named defendant).

Under the operative facts obtaining in the underlying action of the tort-plaintiff in both Wilson and Smith, there were multiple joint tort-feasors, although not all of such joint tort-feasors had been named in the plaintiff's tort action as a party-defendant. Mishoe, on the other hand, was an action in which all joint tortfeasors had been joined by the plaintiff as party-defendants.

In all cases, the Court of Appeals rejected this argument. In Mishoe, supra, 64 Ga.App. at p. 708(19), 14 S.E.2d 107, the court stated, "The contention is that when two joint tort-feasors are charged with concurring negligence contributing to an injury the plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment against both tort-feasors in spite of the fact that the plaintiff was guilty of more negligence than one of the defendant tort-feasors. We do not think this is the law. No plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against a tort-feasor to whose negligence plaintiff's negligence is equal."

In Smith, supra, 77 Ga.App. at p. 501, 49 S.E.2d 90, the court, in reliance on Mishoe, arrived at the same holding, stating, "We think that it is well settled that where the acts of negligence of two or more tort-feasors concur as the proximate cause of an injury, the party aggrieved may sue either one or all of the joint tort-feasors. Where recovery is sought against only one of them, the law seems to be that the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery unless the negligence of the plaintiff equals to or exceeds that of the tort-feasor against whom the action is instituted. In such a situation it is not proper for the court to charge that the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover if the negligence of the plaintiff equaled to or exceeded the combined negligence of the joint tort-feasors."

The Mishoe holding was repeated verbatim in Wilson, supra, 87 Ga.App. at p. 799, 75 S.E.2d 436.

* * *

In Banks v. City of Brunswick, supra, the federal district court concluded, for essentially three reasons, that "present Georgia law does not recognize the principles announced in Mishoe and applied in Wilson and Smith." 529 F.Supp. at p. 701.

First, the federal court found the view espoused in these cases--that fault on the part of the plaintiff is to be compared with that of each tort-feasor individually--to be unpersuasive in view of the paucity of authority cited in these cases in support of this holding. The court in Banks also noted that none of these cases has been subsequently cited for the proposition of law under consideration here.

Second, the court in Banks found the decision in Jordan v. Ellis, 148 Ga.App. 286, 250 S.E.2d 859 (1978), to constitute a sub silentio overruling of Mishoe, Smith and Wilson. In this regard, the federal court in Banks cited the following holding in Jordan: "Under the comparative negligence rule, the jury may apportion damages as it determines within its discretion to be proper when the evidence shows all parties' negligence contributed to the injuries, the plaintiff's to a lesser degree than the defendants'. Fargason v. Pervis, 138 Ga.App. 686, 687 (227 SE2d 464)." (Emphasis supplied.) 148 Ga.App. supra at p. 290, 250 S.E.2d 859. ²

Third, the court in Banks found that the subsequent development of Georgia law with respect to contribution among joint tortfeasors supports the view that there is no continued viability to the Mishoe, Smith, and Wilson holding that relative fault must be considered with respect to each joint tortfeasor individually.

* * *

Under Georgia law, there is found what can be described as a hybrid form of the doctrines of both contributory negligence and comparative negligence.

As a matter of contributory negligence, it is the rule in this State that, if the plaintiff, in the exercise of ordinary care, could have avoided the accident, he is denied recovery. OCGA § 51-11-7; see e.g., Clark v. Carla Gay Dress Co., 178 Ga.App 157, 160, 342 S.E.2d 468 (1986). However, in all other cases, Georgia law's comparative-negligence rule is that if the plaintiff's negligence was less than the defendant's, the plaintiff is not denied recovery although his damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the...