Case Name: LITTLETON et al. v. OB-GYN ASSOCIATES OF ALBANY, P.C. et al.
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1989-07-28
Citations: 192 Ga. App. 634
Docket Number: A89A0299
Parties: LITTLETON et al. v. OB-GYN ASSOCIATES OF ALBANY, P.C. et al.
Judges: McMurray, P. J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs specially.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 192
Pages: 634–637

Head Matter:
A89A0299.
LITTLETON et al. v. OB-GYN ASSOCIATES OF ALBANY, P.C. et al.
(385 SE2d 743)

Opinion:
Carley, Chief Judge.
After the death of their new-born daughter, appellant-plaintiffs brought a four-count complaint against appellee-defendants. Among those counts was a claim by appellant Mrs. Littleton for mental suffering and emotional distress. After answering the complaint and following discovery, appellees OB-GYN Associates of Albany, P.C. and Dr. John S. Inman moved for partial summary judgment as to appellant Mrs. Littleton's claim for mental suffering and emotional distress. The trial court granted the motion and appellants appeal from that order.
The cause of action asserted by appellant Mrs. Littleton to recover damages for her mental suffering and emotional distress has been recognized by the Supreme Court in the case of Smith v. Overby, 30 Ga. 241 (1860). The viability of that cause of action is unaffected by the subsequent passage of Georgia's wrongful death statute. There is no authority for the proposition that the wrongful death statute supplanted, rather than supplemented, the existing law in this connection. To the contrary, the wrongful death statute was enacted for the very purpose of supplementing rather than supplanting existing law. The wrongful death statute "adopted and extended Lord Campbell's act and its successors, and establish liability for wrongful death, where none existed before-, they are familiar examples of the legislative creation of new rights and duties for the prevention of homicides or for satisfying social and economic needs. . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Michael, 175 Ga. 1, 13 (165 SE 37) (1932).
Bell v. Sigal, 129 Ga. App. 249 (199 SE2d 355) (1973) is not au thority for the proposition that appellant Mrs. Littleton should not be allowed to recover for her mental grief and anguish caused by the death of the child subsequent to the enactment of the wrongful death statute. Bell v. Sigal, supra, is distinguishable from the instant case. In Bell, the court emphasized that the plaintiff sought to recover "twice from the same defendant merely by denominating one action a tort and the other a breach of contract." Bell v. Sigal, supra at 249. In the instant case, there is one suit, sounding exclusively in tort, and there is no possibility of a double recovery. Also, and significantly, unlike Bell, the evidence in this case would clearly support a finding that the "impact rule" has been satisfied. Christy Bros. Circus v. Turnage, 38 Ga. App. 581 (144 SE 680) (1928).
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to appellant Mrs. Littleton's separate claim for injuries sustained by her, including her mental suffering and emotional distress. Accordingly, the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of appellees is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
McMurray, P. J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs specially.