Court Opinion

ID: 9848778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:27:02.904253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:45.357587
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
It seems to be the parry and thrust of the three opinions in Horton v. Brown, 117 Ga. App. 47 (159 SE2d 489) (1967) to draw circles around family members, or at least “purporting to draw a circle around all the members of a family as a class, allowing a suit for the wrongful death of one of these members only against someone outside the circle (class).” Id. at 57. Other efforts have been made to draw “the circle of the other’s kin,” Central R. &c. Co. v. Roberts, 91 Ga. 513, 517 (18 SE 315); Wheat v. Fraker, 107 Ga. App. 318, 319 (130 SE2d 251) (1963), perhaps adding a gloss to the lyrical query of “will the circle be unbroken?” One problem may be the lack of a precise equation for the circumference of such a circle, but some illustration is possible.

*216

A review and summary of the case law shows that:
1. No one in A may sue another member of A for a negligent tort. See generally Eschen v. Roney, 127 Ga. App. 719 (194 SE2d 589) (1972); Harrell v. Gardner, 115 Ga. App. 171 (154 SE2d 265) (1967). However, unemancipated children in A can sue parents or persons in loco parentis for wilful torts. Wright v. Wright, 85 Ga. App. 721 (70 SE2d 152) (1952). Also, where the mother of the unemancipated child is the agent of a third party, and whose negligence, attributable to the third party, causes the injury to the child, a cause of action by the child against the third party is not prohibited. Stapleton v. Stapleton, 85 Ga. App. 728 (70 SE2d 156) (1952). Everyone in A can sue everyone in B or C.
2. Emancipated children in C can sue anyone in A or B for their own personal injury, but not for a derivative cause of action where the original injured person (from whose injury the emancipated child’s *217cause of action is derived) may not sue the tortfeasor because both are members of A. Harrell v. Gardner, supra.
Decided September 11, 1985
Rehearing denied September 26, 1985
Alan B. Wain, for appellant.
Thomas S. Carlock, for appellee.
In the instant case, the defendant grandmother, as the appointed legal guardian of the plaintiff unemancipated grandchild, was clearly in loco parentis. This action was in negligence. Accordingly, I completely agree with the majority that public policy prohibits this cause of action.