Court Opinion

ID: 9570883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:27:17.004486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:20:41.213640
License: Public Domain

Quillian, Judge,
dissenting.
A determination of this case requires consideration of whether the rule set forth in the cases cited by the *313majority should be applied as a matter of law on motion for summary judgment. First, let us review the basis of these decisions.
In Fields v. Goldstein, 97 Ga. App. 286, supra, one of the grounds for the decision was that the parties with possession of the policy were charged with knowledge of the provisions and thus their loss was attributable to their own negligence.
In S & A Corp. v. Berger & Co., 111 Ga. App. 39, supra, this court held: "While it is true, under the record in this case, the defendant did fail to procure the amount of insurance coverage contracted for, yet it was the plaintiff’s own negligence in failing to check the amount of the policy coverage that was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s loss. Code § 105-603. Having the policy in its possession prior to the fire plaintiff was charged with the knowledge of the terms and conditions of the policy, namely and in particular that the policy coverage was for only $3,000 and not $7,500 as contracted for between the parties. Fields v. Goldstein, 97 Ga. App. 286 (102 SE2d 921). Consequently the plaintiff being, under the law, charged with knowing the terms and conditions of the. policy, any negligence, if any, on the part of the defendant in failing to procure the amount of insurance coverage contracted for could have been avoided by the plaintiff and therefore a finding for the defendant is demanded.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Both these cases are predicated on the plaintiff being barred by his own negligence and his failure to avoid the consequences of the defendant’s negligence. Since the time of the rendition of those opinions the Georgia Supreme Court has held: "The conduct of a defendant cannot be declared to be negligent, as a matter of law, unless it has been so declared by a law-making body, and, in the absence of such a declaration the jury is the arbiter of the question of whether a defendant’s conduct on a given occasion is negligent, and, if so, whether such negligence is the degree of negligence required for a recovery by a plaintiff.” Garrett v. Royal Brothers Co., 225 Ga. 533 (170 SE2d 294). In this same connection our court has held: "On their motion for summary judgment the same rule of law must be applied to a plaintiff as *314against the contention of the defendants that her own negligence was the sole proximate cause of her injuries, that she did not exercise ordinary care for her own safety, and that by the exercise of such care she could have avoided being hurt, unless the conclusion is demanded as a matter of law that under no state of facts deducible from the evidence could there have been negligence on the part of the defendants. All inferences are in favor of the plaintiff in such a case.” LaBranche v. Johnson, 127 Ga. App. 244, 245 (193 SE2d 228).
We recognize as an established principle of case law one is charged with knowledge of the terms and conditions of a policy or instrument which he has executed. However, there is no statutory law setting forth that one charged with presumptive knowledge of an instrument is negligent per se in not taking some action to avoid the negligence of one whom the party relied upon to make corrections in the policy. Applying the Garrett (225 Ga. 533) principle, a jury should determine whether the negligence of the plaintiff was such as to foreclose him from recovering from the defendant.
I can not agree with the majority that Parris & Son v. Campbell, 128 Ga. App. 165 (196 SE2d 334) and Hawkins Iron & Metal Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 128 Ga. App. 462 (196 SE2d 903) are controlling. Both cases contain no reference to Garrett, supra, or the principle of negligence per se therein involved. While this court is bound by its own whole court, though divided, decisions (as Parris & Son v. Campbell, supra, was), in case of conflict the Constitution requires our obedience to rulings of the Supreme Court.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Bell and Judge Evans concur in this dissent.