Walden v. Coleman

124 S.E.2d 313, 105 Ga. App. 242, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 899
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 9, 1962
Docket39201
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 124 S.E.2d 313 (Walden v. Coleman) 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
Walden v. Coleman, 124 S.E.2d 313, 105 Ga. App. 242, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 899 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

Opinion

*243 Jordan, Judge.

The sole question for determination by this court at this time is whether or not the instant petition as against general demurrer stated a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff for the loss of consortium of her husband, where it affirmatively appeared from said petition that the husband died approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes after the tortious injury.

It is now recognized in this State that a wife has an independent cause of action for the loss of consortium of her husband due to a tortious injury inflicted upon him, although she may not in such action recover any item of damages which would be a proper item of damages in an action directly by the husband. Brown v. Ga.-Tenn. Coaches, Inc., 88 Ga. App. 519 (77 SE2d 24); Gordy v. Powell, 95 Ga. App. 822 (99 SE2d 313); Bailey v. Wilson, 100 Ga. App. 405 (4) (111 SE2d 106); Lunsford v. L. & N. R. Co., 101 Ga. App. 374 (114 SE2d 310), reversed on other grounds, 216 Ga. 289 (116 SE2d 232).

However, whether the action be one by the husband to recover damages for the loss of consortium of his wife or as in the instant case, by the wife for the loss of consortium of the husband, the right of consortium exists only during the joint lives of the husband and wife (Metropolitan St. R. Co. v. Johnson, 91 Ga. 466, 471, 18 SE 816; American Fidelity &c. Co. v. Farmer, 77 Ga. App. 192, 48 SE2d 141); and where the injured spouse subsequently dies, either as a result of the injury or from other causes, the survivor can recover for the loss of consortium only to the time of the other’s death. 27 Am. Jur. 109, Husband and Wife, § 510; 41 C.J.S. 899, Husband and Wife, § 401 (5). If death is instantaneous, no cause of action for loss of consortium arises (Womack v. Central R. & Bkg. Co., 80 Ga. 132, 5 SE 63; 21 ALR 1523), as all rights are merged in the death action. However, if the injured spouse lives for any length of time after the infliction of injury, a cause of action for loss of consortium arises but the surviving spouse can recover for such loss only to the time of the other’s death even though death occurs almost immediately after the infliction of the injury. Womack v. Central R. & Bkg. Co., supra. The amount of damages, if any, to which the plaintiff might be entitled in such situation would be a question for the jury under all the facts and circumstances of the case.

*244 Accordingly, since it is alleged in the instant petition that the plaintiff’s husband lived approximately 2*4 hours after the infliction of the tortious injury, the petition stated a cause of action as against general demurrer for the plaintiff’s loss of consortium for such period of time and the trial court therefore erred in sustaining the general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

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

Related

SHELLY PRIESTER v. C. ERIC TURNER
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2023
In Re: Estate of Lloyd, R. Appeal of: Wentworth
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2016
Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc.
678 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (N.D. Georgia, 2009)
Pattee v. Georgia Ports Authority
477 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D. Georgia, 2007)
Ledger v. Tippitt
164 Cal. App. 3d 625 (California Court of Appeal, 1985)
Sawyer v. Bailey
413 A.2d 165 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1980)
Aretz v. United States
456 F. Supp. 397 (S.D. Georgia, 1978)
Minkley v. MacFarland
356 N.E.2d 1391 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1976)
Lemon v. Bank Lines, Ltd.
411 F. Supp. 677 (S.D. Georgia, 1976)
Complaint of Farrell Lines Inc.
389 F. Supp. 194 (S.D. Georgia, 1975)
Smith v. Tri-State Culvert Manufacturing Co.
191 S.E.2d 92 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Archie v. Hampton
287 A.2d 622 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1972)
Bulloch County Hospital Authority v. Fowler
183 S.E.2d 586 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Bulloch County Hospital Authority v. Fowler
182 S.E.2d 443 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Lombardo v. DF Frangioso & Co., Inc.
269 N.E.2d 836 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1971)
Marzetta v. Steinman
160 S.E.2d 590 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Cody v. Peak
149 S.E.2d 521 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Beavers v. Davis
138 S.E.2d 110 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Shapiro Packing Co. v. Landrum
136 S.E.2d 446 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 S.E.2d 313, 105 Ga. App. 242, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walden-v-coleman-gactapp-1962.