THE VERDICT

A publication of GAPTA, Inc. (Georgia Association of Plaintiffs' Trial Attorneys)

Vol. 3, No.2 March 1961

PRESIDENT'S COLUMN

The 1961 Legal-Medico Seminar held at the Dinkier-Plaza Hotel on March 3rd and 4th, 1961, was an outstanding success. The pro­gram, under the leadership of Chairman Alford Wall, was not only informative, but inspiring as well to all those who availed them­selves of the privilege of attend­ing the various sessions.

The attendance, however, was not what it should have been. Approximately one hundred twenty ­five lawyers registered, and the attendance from the State at large was very good. It was most heart­ening and encouraging that many of the outstanding jurists in metro­politan Atlanta attended the ban­quet and a number likewise attended the Seminar meetings.

The entire meeting was well covered by the Atlanta press.

Obviously, the Georgia Associa­tion of Plaintiffs' Trial Attorneys has made much progress in recent years. The membership is growing yearly, and while we feel THE VERDICT and Brief Bank would, in themselves, justify the existence of the Association, we take pride in the fact the annual Seminar is an added attraction because of the benefits one might derive from these legal-medical meetings.

This year the committee under­took to deviate somewhat from the past Seminar meetings in that the entire session was not taken up primarily with problems of lawyers in dealing with medical problems, but legal problems as well were considered. This was a diversification which proved to be a success. A panel composed of some of the lead­ing advocates of the country was one of the highlights of the entire session.

Each member who attended was well pleased with the talks made by Messrs. Thomas F. Lambert, Jr. and Sidney McMath. They made a very fine contribution to the success of the meeting.

Of interest is an editorial which appeared in the Atlanta Journal March 3, 1961, as follows:

PLAINTIFFS' ADVOCATES

"Anglo-Saxon justice relies heavily on the ability of every citizen to seek a redress of grievances in a court of law. The man who must champion the cause of the aggrieved - sometimes help­less and confused - party is the plaintiff's trial attorney.

"It is ironic that such a noble calling should be popularly asso­ciated with the more common abuses of the legal profession. The majority, we believe, are guided by high principles and do a neces­sary service to the public.

"The Georgia Association of Plaintiffs' Trial Attorneys, meet­ing in Atlanta over the weekend, raises a standard of integrity which all men of good will in their profession can repair to."

If you have a friend who has not become a member of the Georgia Association of Plaintiffs' Trial Attorneys, please insist that he join. As you know, the regular membership fee is only $5.00.

Mr. Ross Arnold, Associate Editor of THE VERDICT, insists that you file your briefs with him so that the Brief Bank might be available for each member of GAPTA.

I hope to see each of you at the meeting of the Georgia Bar Associa­tion.

Yours for a greater GAPTA,

OSGOOD O. WILLIAMS President

STAFF OF THE VERDICT

Editor........... William W. Daniel

Associate Editor ....................... Ross Arnold

RECENT GEORGIA CASES OF INTEREST

TWO SEPARATE TORTS - OR JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY - Where the car of P stops and is hit from the rear by car A which injures P and where car A is then hit from the rear by car B further inflicting injury on P, two separate and distinct torts exist. P may not jointly maintain an action against both the drivers of car A and car B. P would have to bring two actions, one against the driver of car A and one against the driver of car B. Close v. Matson, 102 Ga. App.663.

A recent Workmen's Compensation case of Department of Revenue v. Graham, 102 Ga. App. 756 (3), holds that "Where from the tenor and wording of the award it is clear that the deputy director miscon­strued and misinterpreted the evi­dence and applied an incorrect principle of law, a proper disposi­tion of the case on appeal is to remand it to the Board with instruc­tions that it be considered in the light of a proper interpretation and construction of the evidence and upon the application of correct principles of law."

Where a petition alleges that the owner of a taxi knowingly permits a driver to operate the taxi for a long period of time even though the driver is subject to recurring blackouts (particularly when he works for long periods of time or under great stress and strain) and where the driver suffers a blackout and strikes a parked car in which plaintiff was seated, the petition is not subject to general demurrer of the cab company. Jackson v. Co-Op Cab Company, 102 Ga. App.688. Such a blackout is not considered an act of God since an act of God means "a casualty which is not only not due to human agency but is one which is in no wise contributed to by human agency, and an act which may be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care is not an act of God." P.691. Under the allegations of the petition the plaintiff may also recover exemplary damages.

The recent personal injury case of Bentley v. Ayers, 102 Ga. App. 733, is a suit arising out of an automobile collision and makes several holdings which will be of concern to trial lawyers:

(1) A copy of a prior suit filed by a plaintiff for damages occurring in an automobile accident one-year prior is admissible apparently for the purpose of illustrating the credibility of the witnesses in the second case.

(2) After the defendant had des­cribed the way in which the col­lision took place, he stated, "I don't know of anything I could have done" to have avoided the collision. The plaintiff contended that this testimony was a conclusion and should have been stricken on motion. The Court, however, said that such a statement was based on the facts which he had testified to, and held this statement admissible.

(3) The trial court ruled out testimony o£ a witness in which he stated that he saw the defendant one and one half hours after the colli­sion under the influence of alcohol. This holding was affirmed because such testimony was incompetent and prejudicial due to the extent of time between the collision and the time the witness saw the defendant.

$17,000.00 as damages for pain and suffering for four days during which time the person was conscious or semi­conscious and under heavy sedation, was not excessive where he received injuries including a fracture of the nose and face, bruises and lacerations of the nose and face, a possible brain concussion, fractures of both arms and legs, a dislocated hip, and frac­tures of the ribs. Hill v. Rosser, 102 Ga. App. 776.

CASES OF INTEREST FROM RECENT NACCA NEWSLETTERS.

FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT - U.S. LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT FHA APPRAISAL - PLAINTIFFS, PURCHASERS OF A SINGLE RESIDENCE PROPERTY COVERED BY AN FHA MORTGAGE, WERE INFORMED OF VALUE AT WHICH FHA APPRAISER HAD APPRAISED THE PROPERTY & RELY­ING ON THE APPRAISAL, ENTERED INTO CONTRACT OF SALE - AFTER BEING IN POSSESSION FOR SEVERAL. DAYS, PLAINTIFFS DISCOVERED FOUNDATIONS WERE SETTLING IN AN UNUSUAL MANNER, CAUSING DAMAGE THAT WOULD REQUIRE SPENDING SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS TO REMEDY - EXCEPTION TO FTCA ­GOV'T DID NOT DENY THAT APPRAISAL WAS FAULTY OR THAT PURCHASERS WERE CAUSALLY INJURED THEREBY, BUT DEFENDED ON GROUND THAT PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM AROSE OUT OF A MISREPRESENTA­TION WHICH IS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE OF FTCA - HELD , AFF'MING JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS, WRONGFUL CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF DID NOT CONSIST MERELY OR CHIEFLY IN THE COMMUNICATION TO PURCHASERS, WHEREBY THEY WERE NOTI­FIED THAT HOUSING COMMISSIONER HAD APPRAISED THE PROPERTY FOR MORTGAGE PURPOSES AT A CERTAIN FIGURE, BUT PRIMARILY IN THE NEGLIGENT APPRAISAL ITSELF , WHEREBY THEY WERE LED TO PAY MORE FOR THE PROPERTY THAN IT WAS WORTH - U.S. OWED SPECIFIC DUTY TO PURCHASERS, DESPITE ABSENCE OF CON­TRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM ­GRAVAMEN OF OFFENSE WAS CARELESS MAKING OF THE APPRAISAL TO WHICH REPORT OF THE APPRAISAL WAS MERELY INCIDENTAL. U.S. v. Meustadt, 281 F.2d 596 (4th Cir. 1960).

AGAINST MOTELS - NEGLIGENT CONSTRUC­TION OR MAINTENANCE OF SWIMMING POOL - GUEST'S LEG CAUGHT BETWEEN LADDER & POOL WALL & BROKE - HELD, ERROR FOR TRIAL CT TO GRANT DEFENDANT NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES ALONE ON GROUND THAT $20,000 AWARD WAS EXCESSIVE - WHERE PLAINTIFF'S BROKEN LEG

CAUSED HER GREAT DEAL OF PAIN & SUFFERING, EXTENDED MEDICAL TREAT­MENT & PERMANENT INJURY, AWARD OF $20,000 AGAINST MOTEL WAS NOT CLEARLY EXCESSIVE, EVEN THO' GUEST HAD SEVERE POLIO RESIDUAL DIS­ABILITY IN OTHER LEG & WAS DIS­ABLED BEFORE SWIMMING POOL INJURY. Mow v. F. P. Sadowski Corp., 122 So. 2d 46 (F1a. App. 1960).

ARISING OUT OF - SUICIDE - DECEDENT SUFFERED COMPENSABLE INJURY RESULTING IN AMPUTATION OF LEG 4 1/2 MONTHS LATER, ON DAY HE WAS GOING TO BE FITTED WITH ARTIFI­CIAL LIMB, HE HANGED SELF - HELD, COMPENSABLE - UNCONTROLLABLE IM­PULSE" TEST USED - DECEDENT MEN­TALLY DEPRESSED BY LOSS OF LEG HAD BEEN UNDER PSYCHIATRIST'S CARE. Blasczak v. Crown Cork &

Seal Co., 165 A.2d 128 (Pa. Super. 1960). (Editor's note: This is a Workmen's Compensation case.)