Williams v. Summit Psychiatric Centers P.C.
Decision Date | 24 November 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 75209,75209 |
Citation | 363 S.E.2d 794,185 Ga.App. 264 |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. SUMMIT PSYCHIATRIC CENTERS, P.C. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Adele P. Grubbs, Marietta, for appellant.
Terrance C. Sullivan, Atlanta, Timothy H. Bendin, for appellee.
Summary Judgment--False Imprisonment--Res Judicata. This is the second appearance of this case before this court. See Williams v. Smith, 179 Ga.App. 712, 348 S.E.2d 50. For a succinct statement of the facts, see that case. Mrs. Williams sued both Dr. Smith and Summit Psychiatric Centers, P.C. in this suit in three tort counts but sought recovery from Summit only in the first count alleging false imprisonment. Also it is quite clear that Mrs. Williams seeks a recovery from Summit as the employer of Smith on the theory of respondeat superior. After the case was remanded back to the trial court for further consideration of the allegations against Summit following the discharge of the employee Smith on grant of summary judgment, Summit moved for summary judgment on several grounds, one being res judicata. Mrs. Williams sought to avoid the grant of summary judgment on that ground by submitting a second affidavit in which she sought to show that persons and employees of Summit other than Smith were involved in the imprisonment and thus the doctrine of res judicata would not apply. The trial court rejected this reasoning and granted summary judgment to Summit. It is this grant that forms the basis of Mrs. Williams' second appeal. Held:
1. In her affidavit in contravention of Smith's motion for summary judgment, Mrs. Williams had submitted the following:
On remand to consider further the complaint against Summit, and to supplement her affidavit in those proceedings against Summit, Mrs. Williams filed an additional affidavit in which she stated:
2. In the first decision of this case involving the employee of Summit Psychiatric Centers, P.C., Dr. Smith, this court held: Williams v. Smith, supra at p. 713(1), 348 S.E.2d 50. (Emphasis deleted.)
3. Mrs. Williams contends that the findings of fact and law in Smith, supra, should not be dispositive as to her complaint against Summit for she has submitted a much fuller factual statement in this second consideration of the restraint at the Summit psychiatric facility. We are not persuaded by this contention. In the affidavit in Smith, Mrs. Williams presented her feelings that Dr. Smith told her he was going to commit her and that she was not free to leave. She contended Smith emphasized to her that she could not return to work at her job and that she would be committed as soon as he prepared the necessary paper work. This court concluded that this constituted nothing more than a verbal threat of imprisonment and that Mrs. Williams was free to move about, use the telephone and to leave when she desired, all of which she did. While in the second affidavit, Mrs. Williams set forth more facts showing the basis of her fear of trying to leave, in substance she presented no further evidence that she was physically restrained or was not actually free to use the phone and to leave when she wanted to go without any effort to restrain her. Simply fleshing out with additional detail the threats of restraint did not convert the threat of imprisonment into actual imprisonment. Thus we find the consideration of the false imprisonment issue and the holding thereto as issued in Smith, supra, to be dispositive of the false imprisonment Count I as to Summit. Moreover, the liability of Summit being purely derivative (as discussed in the next division) and dependent on the doctrine of respondeat superior, a judgment in favor of the servant and against Williams is res judicata in favor of the master, Summit, in the continuation of the suit by Williams. Gilmer v. Porterfield, 233 Ga. 671, 673(1), 212 S.E.2d 842. This application of the doctrine of res judicata renders Mrs. Williams' additional facts relating to her subjective fears and imprisonment nugatory, for the issues settled in Smith, supra, are conclusive between Mrs. Williams, Smith and Smith's privies not only as to all matters put in issue in the Smith case but those facts that could have been put in support of those issues. See Delta Air Lines v. Woods, 137 Ga.App. 693, 695, 224 S.E.2d 763.
4....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roberts v. Porter, Davis, Saunders, & Churchill
...res judicata will bar an action "even if some new factual allegations have been made...." (Cits.)' Williams v. Summit Psychiatric Centers, 185 Ga.App. 264, 267-268(6) (363 SE2d 794) (1987)." City of Macon v. Pasco Bldg. Systems, 191 Ga.App. 48, 50, 380 S.E.2d 718 The present litigation is b......
-
City of Macon v. Pasco Bldg. Systems
...res judicata will bar an action 'even if some new factual allegations have been made....' [Cits.]" Williams v. Summit Psychiatric Centers, 185 Ga.App. 264, 267-268(6), 363 S.E.2d 794 (1987). The Authority was an instrumentality of Macon, or an "agent" created by legislative enactment. See K......