Court Opinion

ID: 9576228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:22:01.944274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:46.567461
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The major issue set forth in this appeal concerns the amendment by Duke Oil Company (Duke) to its complaint withdrawing its allegation of ownership of the tractor-trailer unit involved in the subject collision. After filing this amendment, Duke moved for summary judgment against Lawson’s counterclaim. The basis for Duke’s motion was its argument that Lawson could not recover from Duke in any event because the tractor-trailer was not owned by Duke and its driver was neither an employee nor an agent of Duke at the time of the collision. Lawson made no response to Duke’s motion.
I. Duke’s amendment reflecting that the tractor-trailer unit was owned by S. W. Duke Distributor, Inc., who is not a party to this case, was filed nearly five years after the filing of its original complaint. Lawson asserts that Duke was estopped from denying ownership at that time since the statute of limitation barred his bringing an action against the correct party. I cannot agree.
*366“A party may amend his pleadings as a matter of course and without leave of court at any time before the entry of a pre-trial order.” CPA § 15 (a) (Code Ann. § 81A-115). As there was no pretrial order issued in this case, Duke was free to amend its complaint. Moreover, Duke’s original pleadings were, by the subject amendment, stricken from the record insofar as they alleged ownership of the tractor-trailer unit, and “stricken or amended pleadings may not be used to work an estoppel against the pleader.” Azar v. Accurate Const. Co., 146 Ga. App. 326 (246 SE2d 381) (1978). Cf. Martin v. Pierce, 140 Ga. App. 897 (1) (232 SE2d 170) (1977); Haskins v. Jones, 142 Ga. App. 153 (3A) (235 SE2d 630) (1977).
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the evidence offered by Duke in support of its motion was “self-contradictory, vague or equivocal.” In support of its motion, Duke submitted the affidavit of its president (who is also the president of S. W. Duke Distributor, Inc.) “made upon his own personal knowledge.” The president stated that the subject tractor-trailer unit was owned by S. W. Duke Distributor, Inc. at the time of the accident. In addition, he submitted “true, correct and accurate copies” of the certificates of title and the 1973 ad valorem tax receipts for the tractor and trailer showing the owner to be S. W. Duke Distributor, Inc. In light of the foregoing affidavit, as well as Duke’s amended pleadings, Lawson was required to “set forth specific facts showing that there [was] a genuine issue for trial.” CPA § 56 (e) (Code Ann. § 81A-156). See Vitiaz v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 135 Ga. App. 606 (3b) (218 SE2d 313) (1975).
Apparently bewitched by the discovery of an anomaly, the majority persists in viewing Duke’s pleadings as if they had never been amended. However, the status of this case in the trial court is not before this court for review. Those cases cited by the majority in support of its position are factually distinguishable from this case in that either the “admission in the pleadings” was never formally withdrawn or the withdrawn admission was introduced into evidence by one of the parties. See Code §§ 38-402 and 38-403; Davis v. Calhoun, 128 Ga. App. 104 (2) (195 SE2d 759) (1973). To permit Lawson to remain mute in light of evidence which pierced his pleadings contravenes both the letter and spirit of the summary judgment section of the Civil Practice Act.
Furthermore, Lawson’s counterclaim asserted Duke’s ownership of the tractor-trailer unit at the time of the accident. However, since Duke did not respond to the counterclaim, the averments therein must be taken as denied. CPA § 8 (d) (Code Ann. § 81A-108 (d)). Despite this apparent conflict in the pleadings, Lawson did not begin his discovery until nearly four years later, and, *367in response to initial interrogatories, Duke stated that the tractor-trailer was owned by a different corporate entity. Therefore, any delay in discovering the correct identity of the owner of the tractor-trailer was attributable to Lawson himself. See Code § 37-116; Hurt Bldg. v. Atlanta Trust Co., 181 Ga. 274, 286 (182 SE187) (1935).
2. In his affidavit, Duke’s president further stated that the driver of the tractor-trailer unit was not an employee of Duke at the time of the accident. In addition, a copy of Duke’s quarterly federal tax summary, Form 941, was attached to the affidavit. The form lists all persons employed by Duke for the first quarter of 1973, which included the date of the collision. The name of the person driving the tractor-trailer at the time of the collision is notably absent from this list. The president further stated that the form was “a business record of Duke Oil Company, and was prepared in the regular course of business of Duke Oil Company.”
We need not decide whether the affidavit laid the proper foundation for qualifying the tax form as a business record under Ga. L. 1952, p. 177 (Code Ann. § 38-711). See Thomasson v. Trust Co. Bank, 149 Ga. App. 556 (254 SE2d 881) (1979). Since the exhibit merely corroborated the president’s averment as to the driver’s employment, any “error would be harmless because the fact sought to be proved thereby ... is merely cumulative ...” Ball v. State of Ga., 137 Ga. App. 333, 336 (2) (223 SE2d 743) (1976); Cf. Hall v. State, 239 Ga. 832 (4) (238 SE2d 912) (1977); SCM Corp. v. Thermo &c. Products, 153 Ga. App. 372 (3B) (265 SE2d 598) (1980).
Moreover, Lawson’s argument that statements in the affidavit denying the existence of an agency relationship between the driver of the tractor-trailer and Duke when the collision occurred were “bare assertions” insufficient to prove the nonexistence of an agency relationship is without merit. “On the question of agency, the affidavits of parties to the alleged agency denying the existence of the agency are as to facts, whereas bare assertions and denials of third parties as to the agency are conclusions only.” Oglesby v. Farmers Mutual Exchange, 128 Ga. App. 387, 389 (5) (196 SE2d 674) (1973).
Therefore, since Lawson presented no proof that the driver of the tractor-trailer unit was an employee or agent of Duke at the time of the collision, nor any evidence that Duke owned the tractor-trailer unit at that time, I would affirm the trial court.
I am authorized to state that Judge Banke joins in this dissent.