Court Opinion

ID: 9581549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:16:06.230148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:03.288361
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
dissenting. Plaintiffs complaint and evidence in this case show that on April 3,1969, plaintiff Stevens entered into *371contract with defendant, Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., for the treatment and protection of his residence against termites. He paid $259 initially and contracted to pay $25 per year thereafter for annual inspection and retreatment if necessary. Plaintiff alleged and proved that Orkin failed to properly treat his house, and that as a result of carelessness and negligence of Orkin the house was damaged to the extent of $600. Specifically, while Orkin did treat the house, it did so negligently and carelessly, and failed to treat certain strategic portions of the building. As a result of such carelessness and negligence subterranean termites originated in the untreated portions of the house and severely infested same; from 1969 through 1972 termites swarmed in the premises at various times, and during all of which time Orkin’s contract to protect the house from termites was in effect.
Stevens brought an action in Superior Court of Wilkes County against Orkin, and upon the trial of the case, a jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff, upon which judgment was regularly entered. During the course of the trial, defendant moved for directed verdict, and afterwards filed a motion for judgment n.o.v.
The majority opinion holds that Orkin’s motions for directed verdict and for judgment n.o.v. should have been granted and that Stevens should not have been allowed a recovery.
I disagree, and respectfully dissent for the reasons hereafter set forth.
The majority opinion, at page 365, seemingly recognizes the following correct legal principles, to wit:
1. One of two contracting parties may sue the other in tort because of the violation of a duty owed, because of the contract, as a matter of law, though not necessarily a duty arising under the contract.
2. One of two contracting parties may sue the other in tort for misfeasance (negligently, or failing to properly perform an obligation arising under the law, because of the contract) but may not sue for nonfeasance (mere failure to perform the contract, or to do that which he ought to have done).
These are correct legal principles, and I repeat, the majority seems to have recognized them as such at page 365 of the majority opinion.
But then, at page 366, the majority opinion falls into its first serious error, wherein it asserts that plaintiff, Stevens’, contentions: ". . . may be regarded as a case of nonperformance of a contract obligation, as such falls within the ambit of the above stated rule *372that mere failure to perform a contract obligation — or nonaction — gives rise to no claim in tort.” (Emphasis supplied.) This error pervades all of the remainder of the majority opinion, and having made this first erroneous finding, the majority proceeds to erroneously hold: 1. This action is not brought in tort but is brought in contract. 2. The statement in the contract that notice in writing to Orkin be given and Stevens’ failure to give such written notice bars a recovery. 3. Even if Stevens could recover, his only measure of damages must be that provided for in the contract, to wit, a further application of treatment to control termites (which, according to Stevens, if applied as the other was applied, would have been of no value whatever and would not have deterred one single termite from its destructive work). I repeat that these holdings were each and all erroneous.
Plaintiff did not contend or rely upon nonfeasance; to the contrary he alleged, relied upon, and proved misfeasance.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines misfeasance as "not doing a lawful act in a proper manner; omitting to do it as it should be done, ” while nonfeasance is "neglect or failure of a person to do some act which he ought to do.”
If plaintiff had alleged and proved that Orkin took his money and then failed to treat his house against termites, that would have been nonfeasance. But, to the contrary, he alleged that Orkin did treat his house against termites, but failed to do it as it should have been done, that is, did it improperly, negligently and carelessly.
Let us examine paragraph 3 of plaintiff’s complaint, which is as follows: "3. That the agents, servants and employees of defendant failed to properly treat plaintiffs house, and as a result of the carelessness and negligence of said agents, servants and employees of defendant, plaintiffs house was damaged by termites.” (Emphasis supplied.) This leaves it beyond peradventure that plaintiff contended there had been misfeasance, (not nonfeasance) and the majority simply erred in construing his action as one brought for nonfeasance.
While perhaps unnecessary to this discussion, the cases of Harper v. DeFrietas, 117 Ga. App. 236 (1) (160 SE2d 260); and Hunter v. A-1 Bonding Service, 118 Ga. App. 498 (2) (164 SE2d 246) and multiple cases following these, make it very clear that since the advent of the Civil Practice Act, contrary to the law as it stood prior to that time, pleadings are now construed most favorably toward the pleader, and in this case if there is any ambiguity (we say there is none whatever) the complaint would be construed so as to uphold *373the cause of action, not so as to defeat it. Code Ann. § 81A-108 (f) (§ 8 CPA; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 619; 1967, pp. 226, 230).
A case that is directly in point, and singularly enough, is against the same defendant, Orkin, is that of Orkin Termite Co. v. Duffell, 97 Ga. App. 215, 216 (102 SE2d 629), wherein the plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to reinspect, instead of alleging that defendant negligently reinspected, and it was held that because of this difference, the petition did not set forth a good cause of action. At page 216 the holding clearly shows what must be alleged in order to set forth a good cause of action, in the following language: "The plaintiffs petition is based on the alleged nonfeasance of defendant and not on the malfeasance of such defendant, to wit: Failure to reinspect, failure to retreat; failure to discover, and to prevent termite damage. There is no allegation that an inspection was negligently made, or that any retreatment was negligently given the premises, or that because of such negligent inspection the termites were not discovered, or that because of such negligent treatment the termites caused the alleged damages to the premises. The whole case is predicated on the alleged negligence in failing to perform the duties which arose out of the contract, and not on the negligent performance of such duties.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The above case is as explicit as can be. Every detail that was absent in that case was present in the Stevens case. Stevens did not contend that there was a failure to apply and inspect, etc., but contended it was not properly done, but was done carelessly and negligently. Judges Nichols, Felton and Quillian concurred.
Following this case, this court considered another action against Orkin in the case of Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Callaway, 126 Ga. App. 431 (190 SE2d 827). There suit was brought because of negligence of the defendant, for that, during the term of the contract, when it was supposedly "protecting” the premises from these insects, termites in fact infested the property and swarmed and damaged the supporting structures of the house. Defendant, as in the Stevens case, moved for directed verdict, which was not granted, and the jury awarded $1,500 to plaintiff for damages. The evidence showed that Orkin made two inspections and reported the house in satisfactory condition, when, in fact, there was widespread damage and clouds of swarming termites. The case turned on Or kin’s negligence, and this court held that "negligence may be proved by circumstantial evidence where there is an inference of cause and effect relationship which preponderates toward the *374theory that the damages resulted from the defendant’s negligence rather than any other reasonable hypothesis, "and judgment for plaintiff was affirmed. Judges Deen, Eberhardt and Clark concurred. This case is on all-fours with the Stevens case.
The following authorities should help to clarify any problems of law arising in this case and clearly support Stevens’ position, to wit: In A. A. A. Parking, Inc. v. Bigger, 113 Ga. App. 578, and at 581 (149 SE2d 255), it is held: "Where the plaintiffs petition is based on the defendant’s alleged nonfeasance of duty provided by contract, and not on the defendant’s misfeasance, it does not set forth a cause of action ex delicto.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In E. & M. Construction Co. v. Bob, 115 Ga. App. 127 at 128 (153 SE2d 641), this court, speaking through Judge Hall, as to the failure of a contractor to properly repaira house under a contract, held that: ". .. This is defective performance rather than failure to perform... 'One who undertakes by virtue of a contract to repair a chattel for another owes to such other the duty to use ordinary care in making such repairs so as not to endanger the lives and limbs of others by a negligent performance, the consequences of which may be foreseen by him’...” (emphasis supplied) and held that a good cause of action was set forth.
In Rawls Brothers Co. v. Paul, 115 Ga. App. 731, 734 (155 SE2d 819), this court held: "The alleged acts of negligence here do not relate to the failure to perform a duty required by the contract . . .but relate solely to breaches of duty arising from the relation of the parties and the duties arising therefrom. The petition set forth a cause of action in tort.”
A pertinent authority on the duties that arise by law (and not merely by contract) is Frank Graham Co. v. Graham, 90 Ga. App. 840 (2) (84 SE2d 579), where it is held: "One who undertakes by virtue of a contract to repair a chattel for another owes to such other the duty to use ordinary care in making such repairs . . .” Another such case is Townsend &c. Enterprises v. W. R. Bean & Son, 117 Ga. App. 109 (159 SE2d 776), in which case a contract for repairs was made, and the workman cut a hole in the roof as required by the contract, and did not cover the hole in time to prevent injury to the tenant. Defendant sought to defend on the ground that he only did what was required by the contract, to wit: cut a hole in the roof, and that he could not be held liable for performing his contract. The court, at page 117, says: "We do not think that Law (the workman) should hide under the cloak of the contract with the landlord, and avoid liability on demurrer merely *375because the act of cutting a hole in the roof was authorized without any contractual obligation to cover the roof, i. e., as stated by counsel, 'Law performed the job it was employed to do.’ Instead, we think Law had an obligation to provide immediate safeguards for the protection of the tenant’s property.” Of course, Law’s duty to cover the hole he had cut in the roof did arise because of the contract, as he would not have cut the hole in the roof except for the contract. But the duty to cover the hole did not arise under the contract, as no mention of covering the hole was made therein. As was stated in several of the cited authorities, including Graham, supra, and E & M Construction Co., supra, when two parties contract, by the terms of which one is to repair property of the other, regardless of the terms of the contract, the law steps in and imposes a duty on the workman to use ordinary care in making such repairs. That is what is meant by "a duty arising under the law,” not necessarily under the contract, although the duty would not have arisen had there been no contract.
The following statutes are helpful on this question. Code § 105-103: "When the law requires one to do an act for the benefit of another, or to forbear the doing of that which may injure another, though no action be given in express terms, upon the accrual of damage the injured party may recover.” Code § 105-104: "Private duties may arise from statute or flow from relations created by contract, express or implied. The violation of any such specific duty, accompanied with damage, shall give a right of action.” Code Ann. § 105-106: "No privity is necessary to support an action for a tort; but if the tort results from the violation of a duty, itself the consequence of a contract, the right of action is confined to the parties and privies to that contract, except in cases where the party would have had a right of action for the injury done, independently of the contract, and except as provided in Code section 109A-2 — 318.”
The present case against Orkin was brought by Stevens because of Orkin’s misfeasance, and his recovery and the judgment of the lower court should be upheld. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.