Court Opinion

ID: 9851703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:18:02.910049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:12.959927
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
dissenting.
Carol Parker sued E. S. Jarrett for personal injuries arising out of an automobile wreck. Dallas Parker, her husband, sued E. S. Jarrett because of the same automobile wreck, alleging as damages his loss of his wife’s consortium, medical expenses, and automobile damages.
By agreement the two separate cases were tried before the same jury, at the same time. The trial court charged the jury that they would consider the two cases separately, and they were empowered to return a verdict for one plaintiff, and against the other; or for both plaintiffs, or against both plaintiffs, in separate verdicts. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff husband for $950, and against the plaintiff wife.
Both the plaintiffs filed separate motions for new trial, and the trial court entered one order in which he held that a new trial was granted in each case, but upon special grounds, to wit: because the verdict against the wife and the verdict in favor of the husband were inconsistent and illegal; and because the court had charged erroneously to the effect that the jury might find for one plaintiff and not for the other plaintiff.
*201Defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the husband’s case, and his motion for new trial in both cases, were overruled, and defendant appeals.
The majority hold that even though the separate cases were consolidated for trial only and the jury was instructed to return separate verdicts, nevertheless under Code Ann. § 81A-142 (a) this amounted to a consolidation of all of the actions, and was not merely a joint trial. They also seek to overrule Nickle v. Armstrong Furniture Co., 107 Ga. App. 362 (1) (130 SE2d 249), and to bolster the divided opinion of White v. Hammond, 129 Ga. App. 408, 411 (199 SE2d 809). The White case originally obtained only four votes, and was therefore insufficient to overrule Nickle, supra. I do not agree that the two cases here were consolidated. It is crystal clear in these two cases at bar there was no complete consolidation of both cases, but they were consolidated in a very limited fashion to avoid two separate trials. I therefore dissent.
1. I agree fully with Divisions 1 and 2 of the majority opinion, which merely recite clearly established law.
2. We now come to the controlling question here. As these two separate cases were tried together before the same jury, at the same time, and with the same evidence, was the jury obliged to find for both plaintiffs or against both plaintiffs? Could the jury split its verdict and find for one plaintiff and against the other plaintiff?
3. There is no privity between husband and wife as to separate suits by each of them, because of the husband’s injuries, or because of the wife’s injuries, arising out of the same transaction and involving the same negligence. This was plainly held in Blakewood v. Yellow Cab Co., 61 Ga. App. 149 (3, 4) (6 SE2d 126); Owens v. Williams, 87 Ga. App. 238, 243 (73 SE2d 512); Russ Transport, Inc. v. Jones, 104 Ga. App. 612 (122 SE2d 282); Fenster v. Gulf States Ceramic, 124 Ga. App. 102, 106 (182 SE2d 905). For illustration, if the wife is injured, she may lose her suit for personal injuries, while the husband may win his suit for loss of her services and for medical expenses. Neither case is determinative of or res judicata as to the other.
4. This matter has been clearly and concisely decided in the case of Nickle v. Armstrong Furniture *202Company, 107 Ga. App. 362, 363 (1) (130 SE2d 249), which case, until now, has never been overruled and is therefore binding as a precedent on this court. It holds in Headnote 1: "Where two separate common-law actions brought by different plaintiffs against the same defendant are by consent tried together, this does not have the effect of merging the two cases into one, as the common trial is pursued merely for the purpose of expediting the business of the court and for the convenience of the parties, counsel, and the jurors concerned.” In Nickle, supra, the wife sued for her personal injuries and the husband sued for loss of her services, medical expenses incurred in treatment of the wife, and for damages to the automobile. The wife lost her case, while the husband won his case. This court held that while the verdicts were illogical, inconsistent and conflicting, "we cannot find either of them to be illegal or erroneous . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
Th eNickle case was followed by this court in Purdy v. Norrell, 111 Ga. App. 546 (142 SE2d 311), involving separate suits by a mother and her minor son, which cases were by formal order consolidated and tried together. The mother won her case, and the son lost his case, and it was held that the verdicts were legal verdicts.
5. As neither of the above cases has been overruled, they stand as controlling authority under the principle of stare decisis, and must be followed. Cauble v. Weimer, 101 Ga. App. 313, 316 (113 SE2d 641); Drury v. State, 211 Ga. 888, 889 (89 SE2d 513); Eschen v. Roney, 127 Ga. App. 719, 725, 726 (194 SE2d 589).
6. But the majority cite and rely strongly upon a more recent case of this court, to wit, White v. Hammond, 129 Ga. App. 408, 411, 412 (199 SE2d 809), where husband and wife brought separate suits, which were tried together, because of injuries to the wife. The wife lost her case, and the husband won his case, and this court held that these verdicts were inconsistent and therefore illegal and that "the trial judge erroneously failed to sustain the plaintiffs’ joint motion for new trial as to both defendants in both cases, and a new trial is granted.”
The decision in the White case could not have been legal because th eNickle case stood unreversed. In White, *203at page 411, it is stated that the Nickle case was erroneously decided, and at page 412 it is stated: "Nickle v. Armstrong Furniture Co., 107 Ga. App. 362, supra, is expressly disapproved insofar as it allows inconsistent verdicts from the same jury.” (Emphasis supplied.) This language would have been sufficient to dispose of Nickle and get it out of the way of the White holding, except for the fact that five votes of the members of the Court of Appeals are required in order to overrule a previous decision "by any division alone.” Code Ann. § 24-3501. The majority opinion in the White case is approved by only four judges, with one judge concurring in the judgment, one concurring specially, and three dissenting.
7. Therefore, the question now confronting this court is whether we will stand by Nickle, or stand by White, and overrule Nickle. Nickle appears to be grounded on sound reasoning. But the majority now seek to overrule it.
8. The learned trial judge in this case correctly charged the jury that split verdicts might be rendered, and correctly tried the case on this theory. This is a situation where foresight was better than hindsight. If the trial court had granted the motions for new trial on general grounds, this court would have been powerless to interfere. Code §§ 6-1608, 70-208. But having granted same on special grounds which were not meritorious, I would reverse.