Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

517 S.E.2d 328, 238 Ga. App. 767
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 5, 1999
DocketA99A0601
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 517 S.E.2d 328 (Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) 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
Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 517 S.E.2d 328, 238 Ga. App. 767 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinions

Judge Harold R. Banke.

An unknown hit-and-run motorist caused an automobile accident in which Bridget Lee and her daughter received significant physical injuries. Lee witnessed her daughter’s suffering, which eventually resulted in the daughter’s death an hour later. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company provided Lee and her husband with uninsured motorist protection and paid out the policy limits on the daughter’s wrongful death claim. Lee brought suit to recover for her own physical injuries and for the emotional distress she experienced from witnessing her daughter’s sufferings and death. Her husband jointly sued for loss of consortium. State Farm intervened on its own behalf, and Allstate has defended in the “John Doe” name of the unknown motorist.

The court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants on Lee’s claim for emotional distress. Claiming error, Lee argues that Georgia law allows a mother to recover for emotional distress from witnessing her child’s injuries and death where the mother is also physically impacted and injured by the same tortious conduct.

1. Based on Georgia’s impact rule,1 OB-GYN Assoc. of Albany v. Littleton (“Littleton IV”)2 held such damages are not actionable. Littleton alleged that though medically indicated by signs of fetal distress, the doctor failed to perform a caesarean section surgical delivery of her child, with the resulting prolonged vaginal delivery causing physical injury to both her and the delivered child, who died two days later.3 Thus, the same force or impact caused the injuries to the child and mother. She sought to recover for the mental distress associated with witnessing her child’s injuries and subsequent death.

Quoting a Court of Appeals decision,4 the Supreme Court stated:

[768]*768We emphasize that any potential award of damages to Mrs. Littleton in the malpractice claim for her injuries is limited to compensation for any physical injury she suffered as a result of the alleged negligence, and any mental suffering or emotional distress she incurred as a consequence of her physical injuries. Any mental suffering or emotional distress she suffered as a result of injuries to her child is not compensable in this claim.5

Subsequent decisions have reiterated that even though the mother herself may have experienced physical impact and harm from defendant’s tortious conduct, she may not recover for mental distress arising from witnessing her child’s sufferings caused by the same conduct.6 Recovery for emotional distress must arise out of her own physical injuries, and not out of separate physical injuries to the child.7

Thomas v. Carter8 focused on this distinction. The court allowed a mother to recover for emotional distress associated with the death of her fetus because:

The injury to both the mother and the fetus was caused by the direct force to the mother in the automobile collision which resulted in the in útero death of the fetus. The trauma to the placenta is an injury to the mother, not to the child. It was this injury to the mother, and not any separate injury to the fetus, that caused the death of the fetus. Thus, unlike Littleton, the death of the child was the direct result of an injury to the mother.
In Littleton, the Supreme Court recognized that a plaintiff could bring an action for negligence resulting in injuries to her person. This claim may include a claim for compensation for any emotional distress which is a consequential damage resulting from those injuries. In this case, any emotional distress suffered by [the mother] due to the death of [769]*769her unborn child was a consequential damage resulting directly from injuries to [the mother] herself.9

Relying on Littleton IV, Thomas acknowledged that “where the physical injuries to the mother are separate from the injuries to the child, it is appropriate that the mother not be able to recover for her emotional distress resulting from injuries to the child.”10 Thomas explained that unless the particular injuries to the mother are themselves the proximate cause of the child’s death (as where a child dies in útero), the mother may not recover for her mental distress caused by witnessing the child’s suffering.

Lee and the dissent cite Southern R. Co. v. Jackson11 as contrary authority. A close reading of Jackson reveals that it is consistent with the recent authorities cited above. Jackson held in Division 1 that a mother who is physically injured by a negligently run train and whose child is also injured “has a right of action for the wrong to herself.”12 In Division 2 Jackson held that if the mother were not physically injured and her child was, she could not seek to recover for the ■ emotional distress arising from the child’s injuries.13 Jackson does not state that physical injuries to the mother would allow her to recover for the mental distress associated with seeing her child hurt.14

The dissent’s reliance on a “common force” doctrine is misguided, as no Georgia court decision or statute has referred to such a doctrine or used such a phrase. At most, a form of the concept was briefly referenced in Thomas,15 but Thomas then explained it was referring to situations where the mother’s injuries themselves proximately caused the child’s injuries.16 In view of Littleton TV’s clear guidance on this matter, we are not at liberty to create new causes of action or to overrule Supreme Court precedent.

Thus, the court did not err in entering summary judgment on Lee’s claim for mental distress arising from witnessing her daughter’s injuries and death.

[770]*7702. The ruling in Division 1 moots the question of whether State Farm’s uninsured motorist policy would cover this claim as a “bodily injury’ to Lee.

Judgment affirmed.

Johnson, C. J., McMurray, P. J., and Andrews, J., concur. Blackburn, P. J, Ruffin and Barnes, JJ, dissent.

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

Related

Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
541 S.E.2d 700 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Lee v. State Farm Mutual Insurance
533 S.E.2d 82 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2000)
Stewart v. Central of Georgia Railroad
87 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (S.D. Georgia, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
517 S.E.2d 328, 238 Ga. App. 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-gactapp-1999.