Vort v. Westbrook

• Decision Date: 10 May 1965
• Docket Number: No. 22885,22885
• Citation: 221 Ga. 39,142 S.E.2d 813
• Parties: Tommy A. VORT v. Wanda Lois WESTBROOK, by Next Friend.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 813

142 S.E.2d 813

221 Ga. 39

Tommy A. VORT v. Wanda Lois WESTBROOK, by Next Friend.

No. 22885.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 10, 1965.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The use of the word 'vandalism' in Ga.Code Ann. § 105-113 excludes any acts which result in injuries to persons only. Therefore, since the acts alleged in the petition resulted in personal injuries and not property damage, they are not covered by the statute and the petition does not state a cause of action against the defendant as father of the child so as to render him liable under that section.

2. 'This court will not pass upon an attack on the constitutionality of a legislative Act, made by parties whose rights it does not affect, and who therefore have no interest in defeating it.'

Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Gregg Loomis, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Charlie Parker, Charlie Parker, Jr., Atlanta, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Wanda Lois Westbrook, aged 13, brought this action by next friend James O. Westbrook, in the Superior Court of Fulton County against Stephen Vort and Tommy Vort. In count 2 of the petition it was alleged: that Tommy Vort is the father of Stephen Vort, a minor 13 years of age, and has custody and control of Stephen Vort; that on March 27, 1964, the minor plaintiff was in the backyard of her parents' home; that the minor defendant came upon said property and 'as the minor plaintiff turned to face the minor defendant, the minor defendant took a rock, which was in his hand, threw it in the direction of plaintiff, hitting plaintiff in the mouth and teeth'; that as a direct result of said incident the minor plaintiff sustained certain permanent injuries to her teeth; that the minor defendand 'did wilfully and wantonly throw said rock at the minor plainiff with the intention of striking her and causing her injury'; that the act alleged in the petition 'is imputable to defendant and defendant is liable for the results thereof under Georgia Code Sec. 105-113, Acts 1956, page 699.' There was a prayer for damages in the amount of $7,500. To this count of the petition Tommy Vort, father of the minor child, interposed demurrers on the ground that the petition failed to state a cause of action against him and on the grounds that the Act of 1956 is unconstitutional as violative of the due process clauses of the Georgia and Federal Constitutions and of the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution. By bill of exceptions error is assigned on the order overruling these demurrers.

1. The defendant's liability is predicated on Code Ann. § 105-113 (Ga.L.1956, p. 699). That Code section provides: 'Every parent having the custody and control of a minor child or children under the age of seventeen shall be liable for the wilful and wanton acts of vandalism of said minor child or children resulting in injury or damage to the person or property of another: Provided, however, that this Act shall be cumulative and shall not be restrictive of any remedies now available to any person, firm, or corporation for injuries of damages arising out of the acts, torts, or negligence of a minor child under the 'family-purpose car doctrine' or any statutes now in force and effect in the State of Georgia.' We are of the opinion that under a proper construction of the code section the acts alleged in plaintiff's petition, if proven, would not render the defendant liable under Code Ann. § 105-113, and that the court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer on the ground that the petition failed to state a cause of action against him. Code Ann. § 105-113 provides that the parent of a minor under 17 shall be liable 'for the wilful and wanton acts of vandalism of said minor child or children resulting in injury or damage to the person or property of another' (Emphasis supplied). Vandalism is defined as such wilful or malicious acts as are intended to damage or destroy property. See Landers v. Medford, 108 Ga.App. 525, 529, 133 S.E.2d 403, 406; General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Azar, 103 Ga.App. 215, 218, 119 S.E.2d 82, 84; Pintsopolous v. Home Insurance Co., 340 Mass. 734, 166 N.E.2d 559(1); 91 C.J.S. 802, and the cases cited under 'Vandalism' in 44 Words & Phrases 113-114. Applying the definition of vandalism to Code Ann. § 105-113, it is clear that the parent is liable only for wilful and wanton acts of his minor children under 17 which result in damage to property and is not liable for their acts which result in injuries to persons unless the act of vandalism results in injury to property as well as injury to person. By the very definition of the word vandalism, an act resulting in injuries to persons only is not vandalism. Therefore, the use of the word vandalism in Code Ann. § 105-113 excludes any acts which result only in injuries to persons. Since the acts alleged in plaintiff's petition resulted in personal injuries and not property damage, they are not covered by the statute and the petition does not state a cause of action against the defendant as father of the child so as to render him liable under Code Ann. § 105-113. The court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer on the ground that the petition failed to state a cause of action against him.

2. 'This court will not pass upon an attack on the constitutionality of a legislative act, made by parties whose rights it does not affect, and who therefore have no interest in defeating it.' Webb v. City of Atlanta, 186 Ga. 430(5), 198 S.E. 50. Since Code Ann. § 105-113 does not apply to the defendant in this case,...