Court Opinion

ID: 9578436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:45:16.366095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:30.602173
License: Public Domain

On Motion For Rehearing.
Appellant contends the foregoing opinion overlooked the recent decision of Shell v. Watts, 125 Ga. App. 542 (188 SE2d 269) wherein an attempt to make a husband a third-party-defendant in a suit in which the wife was plaintiff in violation of the legal doctrine of marital immunity was held impermissible because one cannot do indirectly that which the law does not allow done directly. Appellant contends the court now is in essence permitting plaintiffs (indirectly) to sue third-party-defendant, Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, for wrongful death when this court’s rationale in Lovett v. Emory University, 116 Ga. App. 277 (156 SE2d 923) would forbid this being done (directly). Emphasis is placed upon that portion of the Lovett opinion which reads: "... a wrongful death action is one in tort strictly limited to death caused by a crime or negligence, except with respect to the sale of specified articles intended for human consumption or use, where either knowledge of the defect or negligence by the seller is an essential element.” P. 280.
Such contention fails for three reasons. The first is that Lovett v. Emory University involving a hospital furnishing blood for transfusion held the right to sue in wrongful death did not give rise to a right to sue for breach of warranty under the particular facts of that case, namely a petition which sounded in tort but contained no allegations of a crime or negligence to support the action directly under the provisions of Chapter 105-13 of the Code, or indirectly under Chapter 105-11 of the Code, even assuming that a blood transfusion is a sale of goods cognizable under the Uniform Commercial Code or otherwise.
*649Secondly, because of a misconception arising out of the word "warranty,” which to many has a contractual connotation, it is frequently overlooked that this court pointed out in Wood v. Hub Motor Co., 110 Ga. App. 101, 104 (137 SE2d 674), that "The statutory implied warranty is 'an obligation that the law places on a party as a result of some transaction entered into’; it is not a contractual obligation.” Thus this court recently stated in Firestone Tire &c. Co. v. Jackson Transp. Co. 126 Ga. App., 471 that "Georgia has in effect treated the implied warranty as a creature of statute, sui generis.”
Thirdly—and most important in the instant case—is the nature of the third-party procedure. Appellee’s initial brief provided for us an analysis of Code Ann. § 81A-114 as construed in the leading case of Koppers Co. v. Parks, 120 Ga. App. 551 (171 SE2d 639). It was so well done that we regard quotation therefrom as being appropriate: "The specific principles applicable to Georgia Code Annotated Section 81A-114 are as follows: (1) The complaint must be against one who is or may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the original plaintiff’s claim against him. (2) The third-party complaint must be based on the same subject matter as the original complaint. (3) Section 81A-114 is procedural only, and neither creates nor abridges the substantive rights of a litigant. (4) The liability alleged on the part of the third-party defendant cannot run only to the original plaintiff. (5) Secondary liability to the original defendant is required if a third-party complaint is to meet the requirements of 81A-114. (6) That secondary liability can be by way of indemnity, subrogation, contribution, express or implied warranty, or otherwise. (7) The allegations of the third-party complaint need not show that recovery is a certainty, but need only state a cause of action, and meet the other requirements set out hereinabove.”
These principles were followed in Ins. Co. of N. A. v. Atlas Supply Co., 121 Ga. App. 1, 4 (172 SE2d 632) with the additional instruction that "A court should liberally construe the impleader provisions to avoid multiplicity of ac*650tions, to save time and cost of reduplication of evidence and to assure consistent results from similar evidence and common issues.”
An additional directive comes from Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Lester, 118 Ga. App. 794 (165 SE2d 587) which forbids use of the third-party procedure to provide a substitute defendant in the absence of indemnity, subrogation, contribution, warranty and the like. In accord are Worrill v. Pitney-Bowes, Inc., 119 Ga. App. 258 (167 SE2d 236) and Whitehead v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 126 Ga. App. 407.
It clearly appears that the instant third-party action by the defendant physician complies with all of the principles of third-party procedure and the cases herein cited.

Rehearing denied.