GA Code § 51-1-16 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 1 - General Provisions|§ 51-1-16. Right of Action for Seduction of Daughter; Exemplary Damages

 The seduction of a daughter, unmarried and living with her parent, whether followed by pregnancy or not, shall give a right of action to the father or to the mother if the father is dead, or absent permanently, or refuses to bring an action. No loss of services need be alleged or proved. The seduction is the gist of the action, and in well-defined cases exemplary damages shall be granted.   (Orig. Code 1863, § 2951; Code 1868, § 2958; Code 1873, § 3009; Code 1882, § 3009; Civil Code 1895, § 3870; Civil Code 1910, § 4466; Code 1933, § 105-1204.)   Cross references.   - Sexual offenses generally, T. 16, C. 6.   Law reviews.   - For note, "Sharpening the Prongs of the Establishment Clause: Applying Stricter Scrutiny to Majority Religions," see 23 Ga. L. Rev. 1085 (1989).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Constitutionality.    - O.C.G.A. § 51-1-16 is a gender-based classification that violates the equal protection clause of the Georgia Constitution because only men may be civilly liable for seduction under the statute. Franklin v. Hill, 264 Ga. 302, 444 S.E.2d 778 (1994).    This section is not of common-law origin, but, on the contrary, supplants and is a substitute for the common law, which required proof of loss of service. Mosley v. Lynn, 172 Ga. 193, 157 S.E. 450 (1931).    Seduction is the act of a man inducing a woman to commit unlawful intercourse with him; and it is not essential, in order to maintain an action, that there should be a promise of marriage. Mosley v. Lynn, 172 Ga. 193, 157 S.E. 450 (1931).   No requirement of "false or fraudulent" means.    - Tort of seduction as codified in O.C.G.A. § 51-1-16 does not include a requirement that the seduction of the daughter be accomplished through "false or fraudulent" means. Franklin v. Hill, 203 Ga. App. 724, 417 S.E.2d 721, cert. denied, 203 Ga. App. 906, 417 S.E.2d 721 (1992).   "Seduction" further construed.    - Properly construed, the word "seduction," as used in this section has reference to any and all cases in which a child is led astray and her morals destroyed, uprooted, and extirpated, her social standing damaged, and she is thereby rendered an unfit associate for other children in the family, and a debased member of society; the word may include adultery or fornication; and there may be recovery by a parent of damages for such conduct as has debauched his daughter, though the seducer be known by the infant to be a married man, if by the employment of any means the seducer leads the child into sexual immorality and vice. Mosley v. Lynn, 172 Ga. 193, 157 S.E. 450 (1931).   Only parent has requisite standing.    - Statute, on its face, provides that only a parent of a seduced daughter has the requisite standing to bring an action for seduction, therefore the alleged victim of seduction, cannot bring a valid cause of action under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-16 in her own name through mother "as next friend". Franklin v. Hill, 203 Ga. App. 724, 417 S.E.2d 721, cert. denied, 203 Ga. App. 906, 417 S.E.2d 721 (1992); Brayman v. Deloach, 211 Ga. App. 489, 439 S.E.2d 709 (1993).   Actionable injury is against parent.    - As a civil injury, the term "seduction" denominates an injury to the parent which arises out of any unlawful sexual intercourse in which the child is induced to participate by the acts or wiles of the seducer. Mosley v. Lynn, 172 Ga. 193, 157 S.E. 450 (1931).   Either parent may bring action.    - This section effected another change from common law, in that at common law the mother, not being entitled to the services of the child, was not entitled to recover for loss or deprivation of such services. Mosley v. Lynn, 172 Ga. 193, 157 S.E. 450 (1931).   Joint tort-feasors.    - One who aids and abets or assists another in the debauchery of a female child, and especially if he stand guard during such continuous seduction, to prevent detection of the participants in the act of fornication and adultery, is a joint tort-feasor, and as such is liable with the principal in the act. Mosley v. Lynn, 172 Ga. 193, 157 S.E. 450 (1931).   Action arises on completion of seduction.    - Father's cause of action for the seduction of his daughter arises when the act of seduction is complete, and not when he discovers that his daughter has been seduced. Davis v. Boyett, 120 Ga. 649, 48 S.E. 185, 102 Am. St. R. 118, 66 L.R.A. 258, 1 Ann. Cas. 386 (1904).   Not necessary to plead particular facts and circumstances.    - In order to charge seduction, it is not necessary that the manner of accomplishing the act or the circumstances attending the act should be set out. Mosley v. Lynn, 172 Ga. 193, 157 S.E. 450 (1931).   Not necessary to allege victim's virtue.    - In an action brought for the recovery of damages under this section, it is not necessary to allege or prove that a daughter alleged to have been seduced was virtuous. Mosley v. Lynn, 172 Ga. 193, 157 S.E. 450 (1931).    Elements of the tort of seduction do not include a requirement that the seduced female be "virtuous," only that the seduced daughter be unmarried and living with her parent. Furthermore, the statute makes it clear that "the seduction is the gist of the action," thus placing the emphasis on the conduct of the tortfeasor, rather than on the behavior of the alleged victim. Franklin v. Hill, 203 Ga. App. 724, 417 S.E.2d 721, cert. denied, 203 Ga. App. 906, 417 S.E.2d 721 (1992).    Fact that in her deposition the alleged victim admitted that she had sexual relations with her boyfriend prior to the alleged acts of sexual intercourse with the seducer would not preclude her mother from bringing an action under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-16. Franklin v. Hill, 203 Ga. App. 724, 417 S.E.2d 721, cert. denied, 203 Ga. App. 906, 417 S.E.2d 721 (1992).    It is not important whether the word "debauching" or "seduction" is used in the pleadings. Mosley v. Lynn, 172 Ga. 193, 157 S.E. 450 (1931).    Cited in Edwards v. Monroe, 54 Ga. App. 791, 189 S.E. 419 (1936); Hosford v. Hosford, 58 Ga. App. 188, 198 S.E. 289 (1938); Wages v. Amisub of Ga., 235 Ga. App. 156, 508 S.E.2d 783 (1998).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 70 Am. Jur. 2d, Seduction, § 30 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 86 C.J.S., Torts, §§ 88, 89.   ALR.    - Exhibition of child in criminal prosecution, or civil action, for seduction, 1 A.L.R. 622.    When statute of limitations commences to run against civil action for seduction, 3 A.L.R. 155.    Promise of marriage as condition of civil action for seduction, 21 A.L.R. 303.    Presumption and burden of proof as to chastity of prosecutrix in a prosecution for seduction, 64 A.L.R. 265.    Right of seduced female to maintain action for seduction, 121 A.L.R. 1487.   Excessiveness or inadequacy of damages for alienation of affections, criminal conversation, or seduction, 36 A.L.R.2d 548.   Admissibility of evidence of character or reputation of party in civil action for sexual assault on issues other than impeachment, 100 A.L.R.3d 569.