Holland v. Tennyson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holland v. Tennyson

410 S.E.2d 447, 201 Ga. App. 125, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 1220

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 6, 1991

DocketA91A0757

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 410 S.E.2d 447 (Holland v. Tennyson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holland v. Tennyson, 410 S.E.2d 447, 201 Ga. App. 125, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 1220 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooper, Judge.

Appellee was served a complaint in which appellant alleged that he suffered damages on December 1, 1989, while exiting a restaurant owned by appellee. Subsequently, appellant recast the complaint and alleged that he suffered damages on December 1, 1989, while exiting a mobile home owned by appellee. When appellee failed to file an answer to the complaints, the trial court rendered a default judgment against appellee on the issue of liability and ordered a hearing to determine the issue of damages. After all the evidence had been presented at the hearing, the court, without a jury, granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict on the question of damages because the evidence adduced showed that appellant had sustained injuries on November 30, 1989, rather than December 1, 1989, as stated in appellant’s complaints.

Appellant’s sole enumeration of error is that the court erred in directing a verdict for appellee on the issue of damages inasmuch as the court had previously entered a default judgment in favor of appellant on the issue of liability. We agree with appellant and reverse. “Due to [her] default [appellee] is in a position of having admitted each and every material allegation of [appellant’s] complaint except as to the amount of damages suffered by [appellant]. [Cits.] Defenses which go to the right of recovery are not available to [appellee] in default even though the same defense may also go to the assessment of damages. [Cit.]” Whitby v. Maloy, 150 Ga. App. 575 (1) (258 SE2d 181) (1979). See OCGA § 9-11-55 (a). Evidence which serves to relieve appellee of liability which she has already admitted by virtue of the default judgment is inadmissible. First Union Nat. Bank of Ga. v. Floyd, 198 Ga. App. 99 (3) (400 SE2d 393) (1990). See Lee v. Morrison, 138 Ga. App. 332 (226 SE2d 124) (1976).

Despite the discrepancy in the asserted dates of the accident, the trial court erred in considering evidence which spoke to the liability of the appellee. By the default judgment, appellee’s liability for the accident was admitted, and the only issue to be determined by the court was the amount of the damages. Therefore, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for a hearing on the amount of damages to be awarded to appellant.

Judgment reversed and remanded.

Birdsong, P. J., and Pope, J., concur. *126 Decided September 6, 1991. Beauchamp & Associates, Robert M. Beauchamp, for appellant. Perry, Walters & Lippitt, Nancy G. Grigg, for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cooper, Judge.

Appellee was served a complaint in which appellant alleged that he suffered damages on December 1, 1989, while exiting a restaurant owned by appellee. Subsequently, appellant recast the complaint and alleged that he suffered damages on December 1, 1989, while exiting a mobile home owned by appellee. When appellee failed to file an answer to the complaints, the trial court rendered a default judgment against appellee on the issue of liability and ordered a hearing to determine the issue of damages. After all the evidence had been presented at the hearing, the court, without a jury, granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict on the question of damages because the evidence adduced showed that appellant had sustained injuries on November 30, 1989, rather than December 1, 1989, as stated in appellant’s complaints.

Appellant’s sole enumeration of error is that the court erred in directing a verdict for appellee on the issue of damages inasmuch as the court had previously entered a default judgment in favor of appellant on the issue of liability. We agree with appellant and reverse. “Due to [her] default [appellee] is in a position of having admitted each and every material allegation of [appellant’s] complaint except as to the amount of damages suffered by [appellant]. [Cits.] Defenses which go to the right of recovery are not available to [appellee] in default even though the same defense may also go to the assessment of damages. [Cit.]” Whitby v. Maloy, 150 Ga. App. 575 (1) (258 SE2d 181) (1979). See OCGA § 9-11-55 (a). Evidence which serves to relieve appellee of liability which she has already admitted by virtue of the default judgment is inadmissible. First Union Nat. Bank of Ga. v. Floyd, 198 Ga. App. 99 (3) (400 SE2d 393) (1990). See Lee v. Morrison, 138 Ga. App. 332 (226 SE2d 124) (1976).

Despite the discrepancy in the asserted dates of the accident, the trial court erred in considering evidence which spoke to the liability of the appellee. By the default judgment, appellee’s liability for the accident was admitted, and the only issue to be determined by the court was the amount of the damages. Therefore, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for a hearing on the amount of damages to be awarded to appellant.

Judgment reversed and remanded.

Birdsong, P. J., and Pope, J., concur. *126 Decided September 6, 1991. Beauchamp & Associates, Robert M. Beauchamp, for appellant. Perry, Walters & Lippitt, Nancy G. Grigg, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

410 S.E.2d 447, 201 Ga. App. 125, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 1220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-tennyson-gactapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack