Ridco Exterminating Co. v. Stiltjes

Supreme Court of Georgia

Ridco Exterminating Co. v. Stiltjes

409 S.E.2d 847, 261 Ga. 697

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 1, 1991

DocketS91G0411

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 409 S.E.2d 847 (Ridco Exterminating Co. v. Stiltjes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ridco Exterminating Co. v. Stiltjes, 409 S.E.2d 847, 261 Ga. 697 (Ga. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

*697 Smith, Presiding Justice.

When this case and the wrongful death case of Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterminating Co., 192 Ga. App. 778 (386 SE2d 696) (1989), came on to be heard before the trial court, defendant Ridco moved to join these two cases. The trial judge denied Ridco’s motion holding that the two cases were “separate and distinct causes of action which seek different damages.” After the wrongful death case, Stiltjes, supra, had been disposed of and this case came on for trial, the trial court, contrary to its original ruling, granted summary judgment to. defendant Ridco. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding for all practical purposes, the same as the trial court did in denying the appellant’s motion to consolidate.

Certiorari was granted in this case to view, in light of Stenger v. Grimes, 260 Ga. 838 (400 SE2d 318) (1991), the Court of Appeals’ opinion reversing the grant of a summary judgment to appellant in the trial court. We affirm.

When the trial court denied the motion to consolidate, Stenger, supra, had not been decided by this Court. The Stenger case would have controlled had the trial court had the benefit of it at the time of its initial ruling. However, it did not and it would be unfair to deny the appellant her day in court because Stenger had not been decided at that time. Substantial justice dictates that Mrs. Stiltjes be granted a new trial in her present case.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Bell, Hunt, and Fletcher, JJ., who concur in the judgment only.

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

*697 Smith, Presiding Justice.

When this case and the wrongful death case of Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterminating Co., 192 Ga. App. 778 (386 SE2d 696) (1989), came on to be heard before the trial court, defendant Ridco moved to join these two cases. The trial judge denied Ridco’s motion holding that the two cases were “separate and distinct causes of action which seek different damages.” After the wrongful death case, Stiltjes, supra, had been disposed of and this case came on for trial, the trial court, contrary to its original ruling, granted summary judgment to. defendant Ridco. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding for all practical purposes, the same as the trial court did in denying the appellant’s motion to consolidate.

Certiorari was granted in this case to view, in light of Stenger v. Grimes, 260 Ga. 838 (400 SE2d 318) (1991), the Court of Appeals’ opinion reversing the grant of a summary judgment to appellant in the trial court. We affirm.

When the trial court denied the motion to consolidate, Stenger, supra, had not been decided by this Court. The Stenger case would have controlled had the trial court had the benefit of it at the time of its initial ruling. However, it did not and it would be unfair to deny the appellant her day in court because Stenger had not been decided at that time. Substantial justice dictates that Mrs. Stiltjes be granted a new trial in her present case.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Bell, Hunt, and Fletcher, JJ., who concur in the judgment only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 S.E.2d 847, 261 Ga. 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridco-exterminating-co-v-stiltjes-ga-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack