DEATON HOLDINGS, INC. v. TIFFANY REID

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: May 26, 2023
• Docket: A23A0005
• Status: Published

Opinion

THIRD DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., GOBEIL, J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE PHIPPS

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

May 26, 2023

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A23A0005. DEATON HOLDINGS, INC. v. REID et al.

DOYLE, Presiding Judge.

Following a motor vehicle accident resulting in serious injuries to herself and

her three children, Tiffany Reid (“Reid”), individually and as natural guardian of

Holden Reid, Khyren Reid, and Nevaeh Reid, and Hillary B. Cranford, as conservator

for Holden, Khyren, and Nevaeh, sued Deaton Holdings, Inc., alleging that one of its

trucks blocked the view of the person driving the car she and the children were in,

resulting in him striking another vehicle. Deaton moved to add two individuals and

a corporation as indispensable parties and to realign the party defendants. The trial

court denied the motion, finding that although Deaton may seek contribution in a

third-party complaint against the non-parties, it is not entitled to have them added to the case as indispensable parties under OCGA § 9-11-19. Deaton appeals, and we

affirm, for the reasons that follow.

“A trial court’s decision as to whether a party should be added to a lawsuit lies

in the court’s sound discretion and will be overturned on appeal only upon a showing

of abuse of that discretion.”1

The record shows that on February 25, 2021, Brandon Byers was driving a car

southbound on Woods Road at the intersection of State Highway 20 in Rome,

Georgia; Reid and her children were passengers in his car. When he attempted to

make a left-hand turn into the westbound lanes of Highway 20, his car was struck on

the driver’s side by an eastbound car driven by Laticia Taylor. At the time of the

collision, a broken down tractor-trailer owned by NFI Industries was sitting in the

right-hand turn lane of westbound Highway 20, immediately adjacent to the

intersection where the collision occurred. A repair truck owned by Deaton, which had

been dispatched to repair the NFI truck, was parked in front of the NFI truck.

1 (Punctuation omitted.) Merritt v. Marlin Outdoor Advertising, Ltd., 298 Ga. App. 87, 93 (4) (679 SE2d 97) (2009).

2 Reid and her children were seriously injured in the collision. Police found

Byers to be the only party at fault for the accident, and he was cited and arrested on

several charges, including driving under the influence of marijuana.

On February 8, 2022, Reid filed suit against Deaton only, alleging that the

Deaton truck blocked Byers’s view of oncoming traffic so that when he pulled out to

turn left, he could not see that Taylor’s car was so close. Reid did not name Byers,

Taylor, or NFI as defendants in her lawsuit.

Deaton filed a motion to add indispensable parties and realign the party

defendants, contending that Byers, Taylor, and NFI are necessary and indispensable

defendants and must be added to the case under OCGA § 9-11-19 (a). At the same

time, Deaton filed a third-party complaint against Byers, Taylor, and NFI, seeking

contribution from them in the event it is found liable to Reid. Deaton alleged,

generally, that NFI’s truck also blocked Byers’s view and that Byers and Taylor, as

drivers of the cars, shared fault for the accident. The trial court denied the motion,

ruling that although Deaton is entitled to pursue claims for contribution in a

third-party complaint against Byers, Taylor, and/or NFI, it is not entitled to have them

added to the case under OCGA § 9-11-19. After the trial court certified its order for

3 immediate review, Deaton filed an application for interlocutory appeal, which this

Court granted, and this appeal followed.

1. Apportionment/contribution. Deaton argues that the trial court erred by

denying its motion to add indispensable parties. We disagree.

Georgia’s former multi-defendant apportionment statute, OCGA § 51-12-33

(b) (2021), does not provide a basis to reduce Deaton’s liability due to negligence by

Byers, Taylor, or NFI because it did not apply in single-defendant cases. While

subsection (b) of the former apportionment statute authorized a trier of fact to

“apportion its award of damages among the persons who are liable according to the

percentage of fault of each person,” the plain language of the former statute limited

subsection (b) to actions “brought against more than one person for injury to person

or property.”2 Thus, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that if a case is brought

against a single named defendant, OCGA § 51-12-33 (b) (2021) did not allow that

defendant’s liability for damages to be reduced according to the percentage of fault

2 (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 51-12-33 (b) (2021). The 2022 amendment, applicable to all cases filed after May 13, 2022, substituted “one or more persons” for “more than one person” in subsection (b). See Ga. L. 2022, p. 802, § 2/HB 961.

4 allocated to a nonparty in the case.3 Accordingly, because Reid named only Deaton

as a defendant, even if Deaton establishes that Byers, Taylor, and/or NFI share some

degree of fault for Reid’s injuries, the former applicable apportionment statute does

not provide a basis for Deaton’s liability to Reid to be reduced.4

Deaton may, however, have a right of contribution from Byers, Taylor, and

NFI. As the Supreme Court of Georgia explained,

[j]ust because OCGA § 51-12-33 (b) [2021] does not apply to cases with a single defendant does not mean that a single defendant is without a remedy against its joint tortfeasors. Where apportionment does not apply, joint tortfeasors who both proximately cause a single injury are jointly and severally liable for damages caused by the injury, and a tortfeasor may seek contribution from its joint tortfeasor(s).5

3 See Alston & Bird, LLP v. Hatcher Mgmt. Holdings, LLC, 312 Ga. 350, 356 (862 SE2d 295) (2021), superceded by statute for cases filed after May 13, 2022, OCGA § 51-12-33 (b) (2022) (“There is no grant of authority in the apportionment statute[, OCGA § 51-12-33 (b) (2021),] to reduce damages according to the percentage of fault allocated to a nonparty in a case with only one named defendant.”). 4 See id. 5 Id. at 356, n.2, citing OCGA § 51-12-32 (a) (the right of contribution “shall continue unabated” except as provided in the apportionment statute); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Loudermilk, 305 Ga. 558, 575 (2) (826 SE2d 116) (2019) (holding that damages apportioned under OCGA § 51-12-33 (b) are not subject to any right of contribution, but if apportionment does not apply, the “apportionment statute did not render the contribution statute a nullity”).

5 It is well-settled that a tortfeasor has a substantive right of contribution from

other joint tortfeasors who were not sued in the action.6 In Fed. Deposit Ins. Co. v.

Loudermilk,7 the Supreme Court of Georgia held that there is a right of contribution

in situations in which the joint tortfeasors acted in concert.8 Contrary to Deaton’s

argument, however, the Loudermilk Court did not limit joint and several liability to

such situations. Instead, the Court held that even after the enactment of the

apportionment statute, joint and several liability (and the right of contribution) is

available in some circumstances, including when the tortfeasors acted in concert.9

Though the Loudermilk Court observed that the analytical focus for dividing liability

amongst wrongdoers is different under the apportionment statute than it was under

existing Georgia law, it does not overrule our longstanding precedent that, as in this

case, when multiple acts of negligence combine to produce a single indivisible injury

6 See OCGA § 51-12-32; Hyde v. Klar, 168 Ga. App. 64 (308 SE2d 190) (1983). 7 305 Ga. 558, 573 (826 SE2d 116) (2019). 8 See id. at 572-576 (2). 9 See id.

6 and no rational basis exists for an apportionment of the damages, the actors are

considered joint tortfeasors.10

Furthermore, as discussed above, the former apportionment statute does not

apply to this case, so the analytical focus imposed by that statute is not controlling.

And the apportionment statute itself provides that it does not “eliminate or diminish

any defenses or immunities which currently exist, except as expressly stated [within

it].”11 Accordingly, the trial court properly concluded that Deaton has a right of

contribution from Byers, Taylor, and NFI.

2. OCGA § 9-11-19. Deaton further contends that Byers, Taylor, and NFI are

indispensable parties under OCGA § 9-11-19. This enumeration is without merit.

Deaton moved to join Byers, Taylor, and NFI as party defendants under OCGA

§ 9-11-19 (a), which provides that “[a] person who is subject to service of process

shall be joined as a party in the action if: (1) In his absence complete relief cannot be

afforded among those who are already parties.” “[J]oint tortfeasors are not

10 See Unger v. Bryant Equip. Sales & Svcs., Inc., 255 Ga. 53, 54 (1) (335 SE2d 109) (1985); Axcan Scandipharm v. Schwan’s Home Svcs., 299 Ga. App. 49, 51 (1) (681 SE2d 631) (2009). 11 OCGA § 51-12-33 (e).

7 indispensable parties in an action against one of them,”12 and a plaintiff cannot be

forced to sue additional tortfeasors beyond those she elected to name in her

complaint.13 Deaton argues, however, that these principles do not apply to this case

because the proposed defendants are not joint tortfeasors, and although contribution

could provide some relief, that relief will not be complete because Deaton will first

have to pay the entirety of the judgment itself.

As we held in Division 1, it appears that Byers, Taylor, and NFI are joint

tortfeasors against whom Deaton has a right of contribution. And because they are

joint tortfeasors, it follows that they are not indispensable parties subject to being

added to the case under OCGA § 9-11-19 (a).14 As to the completeness of the relief,

Deaton has not established that this case is any different than other cases involving

12 Merritt, 298 Ga. App. at 93-94 (4). 13 See Sloan v. Southern Floridabanc Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 197 Ga. App. 601, 602 (1) (398 SE2d 720) (1990) (“ It is clear under Georgia law that OCGA § 9-11-19 has no application where liability is joint and several[,] and the plaintiff has a right of election as to which defendants plaintiff will proceed against.”). 14 See Merritt, 298 Ga. App. at 93-94 (4).

8 third-party complaints for contribution, which the Supreme Court has clearly

endorsed as a remedy when apportionment is not available.15

Based on this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying

Deaton’s motion to add and realign indispensable parties.

Judgment affirmed. Gobeil, J., and Senior Appellate Judge Herbert E. Phipps

concur.

15 See Hatcher, 312 Ga. 350 at 356 n.2.