Court Opinion

ID: 9585600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:02:07.342057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:29.998789
License: Public Domain

Jordan, Justice,
dissenting.
I would affirm the finding of the trial court that the dismissal of the suit "was due to the negligence of plaintiff for which no relief can be given under Code Ann. § 81A-160 (e).”
I agree with the statement in the majority opinion that if the suit had not been filed during the plaintiffs infancy, the statute of limitations would not bar its being filed when the minor reached majority. However, when a suit is filed on behalf of a minor by his representative or by his next friend or a guardian ad litem, it is subject to the rules governing all suits and it becomes the duty of that representative and his attorney to diligently pursue the litigation.
Code Ann. § 81A-117 (c) clearly provides that an infant or incompetent person "may sue by his next friend or by a guardian ad litem.” If a guardian ad litem had been desired, it was the duty of counsel to so move the court. See O’Neil v. Moore, 118 Ga. App. 424 (2) (164 SE2d 328) (1968).
It is important to note that the accident giving rise to this litigation occurred in July, 1971. The plaintiff, *412through his father as next friend, hired an attorney and filed suit. Over 3 years later the case had not been tried and the attorney withdrew from the case with notice to his client and the court. Several months later, in January 1975, the case came on regularly for trial and was dismissed for want of prosecution, this acting as a dismissal on the merits. In February 1977, some 2 years and 1 month after the dismissal, the present suit to set aside was filed. The trial court’s order is dated December 11,1978. The case was docketed in the Court of Appeals on February 9,1979, and transferred to this court on March 9,1979. The majority opinion now sends the case back for trial sometime in the 80’s, some 10 years after the accident. This inordinate delay deprecates the judicial system, and was occasioned solely by the negligence of the plaintiffs parents in attempting to pursue his cause in the courts. Such trifling with the courts should not be the object of a reward by this court.