Court Opinion

ID: 9585192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:57:22.753936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:01.168042
License: Public Domain

Felton, Chief Judge,
dissenting. “It has been repeatedly held that a verdict exonerating the servant in a joint action brought against the master and the servant for damages caused solely by the negligence of the servant requires a verdict for the master also.” Roadway Express, Inc. v. McBroom, 61 Ga. App. 223, 226 (6 SE2d 460); Southern R. Co. v. Harbin, 135 Ga. 122 (68 SE 1103, 30 LRA (NS) 404, 21 AC 1011); Salmon v. Southern R. Co., 137 Ga. 636 (73 SE 1062); Southern R. Co. v. Davenport, 39 Ga. App. 645 (148 SE 171); Southern R. Co. v. Nix, 62 Ga. App. 119 (8 SE2d 409). In the present case the proximate cause of the overturning of the truck was alleged to be the joint and concurring negligence of the defendant drivers of the two vehicles. If this was the sole proximate cause, then it is ap*187parent, under the above cases, that the jury’s verdict in favor of the two drivers necessarily required a verdict for the appellant-masters on the theory of respondeat superior. Liability was sought to be imposed on appellants not only under respondeat superior, but also on the basis of their alleged negligence in knowingly hiring an incompetent driver. Even if such allegation was proved by the evidence, however, in order for appellants’ negligence to have been the sole or a concurring proximate cause of the mishap it must be found that the appellants’ driver was negligent resulting from the incompetency at the time of the mishap. McKinney v. Burke, 108 Ga. App. 501, 504 (2) (133 SE2d 383), and citations.
In the case of Reliable Transfer Co. v. Gabriel, 84 Ga. App. 54 (65 SE2d 679), one division of this court held that a verdict against a master, who was guilty of negligence per se in permitting his co-defendant driver to operate his truck continuously for longer hours than was permitted by a rule of the Public Service Commission of Georgia, was not void because the jury found that the servant was not negligent. The court recognized that there were allegations and evidence of the servant’s negligence in violating the rule, but justified the jury’s inconsistent verdict on the basis that his negligence was caused by his fatigue, which, in turn, assumedly was caused by the master’s negligence in causing and permitting the violation. This holding does violence to the rules of proximate cause and intervening cause in that it regards the servant driver as a mere unreasoning, completely subservient instrumentality by means of which the master perpetrated his negligence per se. It overlooks the possibilities of a driver’s exercising his own judgment and refusing to violate the rule and of some drivers’ still being alert notwithstanding such long hours. In other words, the collision could not have occurred but for the negligence of the servant-driver; therefore a finding in favor of him must indicate that he was not negligent, from which it follows that the negligence of the master could not have been the proximate cause. This point was made in the dissent to the case of Moffett v. McCurry, 84 Ga. App. 853, 867 (67 SE2d 807), in which it was stated that “Reliable Trans. Co. v. Gabriel, supra, violates the principle of older cases from this *188court and the Supreme Court because in that case the jury found the defendant master liable because of negligence which under the jury’s finding could not have been the proximate cause of the injuries.” In Moffett v. McCurry, supra, p. 866 (10), it is stated that the cases cited for the proposition set forth at the beginning of this dissent “have no application where there is any evidence authorizing the jury to find that the master was negligent independently of his servant-codefendants. Southern R. Co. v. Garland, 76 Ga. App. 729 (47 SE2d 93); Reliable Transfer Company v. Gabriel, 84 Ga. App. 54 (65 SE2d 679).” Insofar as the Reliable Transfer case, the Moffett v. McCurry case, the Southern R. Co. v. Garland case, or any similar cases hold or imply, as they appear to do, that the master’s negligence in such cases need not be the proximate cause, they should be specifically overruled.
Accordingly, the judgment absolving the appellants’ servant but holding the master liable is contradictory and is therefore a nullity. The appellants’ motion was not a motion for a new trial—it was not denominated as such. The verdict, correctly construed, was in favor of the appellants. Regardless of whether it was a motion in arrest of the judgment or a motion to set aside the judgment it was timely filed, as it was filed during the term at which the judgment was obtained, and it was predicated on a defect which appeared on the face of the record or pleadings (the pleadings and the verdict and judgment). See Code Ann. § 110-703.
In the present situation the question of amendability, prima facie, does not enter into the picture. The question here is whether there was an amendment, one in writing, or one resulting from failure to object to evidence. Here the defect aimed at is not one which needed an amendment to- make the verdict good. The defect is one which the jury fashioned by an inconsistent finding. It is true that a motion for a new trial could have been made on the general grounds but such is not the exclusive remedy. It is our opinion that a prima facie case is made out for arresting a judgment based on an inconsistent and contradictory verdict by a showing that upon the face of the written record the verdict and judgment are inconsistent and *189contradictory and that the burden shifts to the respondent to show by a transcript of the evidence that the petition was amended by the introduction of evidence without objection and that such an amendment in law amounted to one which showed upon the face of the record. There is no presumption that a petition is so amended. The prima facie presumption would be to the contrary. A meaningless or unenforceable verdict can be set aside on a motion in arrest of judgment. Rollins v. Personal Finance Co., 49 Ga. App. 365, 366 (2) (175 SE 609).
Where a petition sets forth a cause of action, as against a motion in arrest of judgment there is no presumption that the petition was amended otherwise than by a written amendment duly allowed by the court, and the movant makes out a prima facie case on his motion in arrest when he shows that there was no written amendment on the face of the record and the respondent has the burden of overcoming the presumption by showing that the petition was in effect amended by the introduction of evidence unobjected to which would have shown the verdict not to be inconsistent and contradictory. In the cases where motions for new trial have been urged, the rule is different. In those cases the grounds are that a new trial should be granted because of defects not appearing on the face of the record. In these cases there is a presumption that the amendable defects were cured by verdict and the burden is on the movant to show by the transcript or brief of evidence that there was no amendment and the issue would be tried by what the pleadings and evidence showed. If it should appear that the pleadings were not in effect amended, a new trial should be granted. The only difference between the two procedures lies in where the original burden of proof lies. The movant can select any proper procedure he desires. The motion in this case complains of a judgment based on a contradictory and impossible verdict. The complaint is not that there was insufficient evidence to authorize the verdict. Since the finding was in .favor of the servant the verdict was contradictory and inconsistent on the face of the record and the error was inherent in the written record. The defect was in the verdict and was one which could not have been amended.
One cogent question should be answered. We think it answers *190itself. Where a resident and nonresident of a county are sued as joint tortfeasors in the resident’s county and the jury finds in favor of the resident and against the nonresident, why should the nonresident be forced to file a motion for a new trial, where judgment as to the nonresident is void and the last thing he wants is a new trial in a court without jurisdiction of him? We have an analogous situation in this case. The majority opinion overlooks the distinction between a verdict which is void on the face of the record and one that is not void on the face of the record. They give a presumption of validity to a verdict which the face of the record shows to be absolutely void. They presume that the unusual and remotely likely thing happened. They presume that the plaintiff’s attorney introduced testimony inadmissible under the allegations of the petition and that the defendants’ attorneys failed to do their duty and object to such evidence. The majority reverse the whole rationale giving rise to presumptions.
Justice can be 'completely done in this case by reversing the trial court’s judgment and directing that the appellee be given the opportunity of showing by a transcript of the record, if he can, that the petition was in effect amended by the introduction of evidence without objection that the employers were guilty of an independent act of negligence constituting the proximate cause of the injuries complained of.
The general rule is stated in Barbee v. Barbee, 201 Ga. 763 (41 SE2d 126), as follows: “It is the general rule of pleading and practice in this State, as to all courts, that relief can not be granted for matter not alleged or prayed for, and that a verdict and judgment which award relief beyond such pleadings and prayer are illegal and subject to be set aside. This general rule is based upon the principle that the court pronounces its decree secundum allegata et probata. See Code § 110-101; Robson v. Harwell, 6 Ga. 589; Milner v. Mutual Benefit Building Assn., 104 Ga. 101 (30 SE 648); Griffeth v. Haygood, 174 Ga. 22, 24 (161 SE 831).” See also Prescott v. Bennett, 50 Ga. 267, 273; Beall v. State, 21 Ga. App. 73 (94 SE 74); Dixon v. Mason, 68 Ga. 478; Ryner v. Duke, 205 Ga. 280 (53 SE2d 362). Any decision by this court or the Supreme Court which is in conflict *191with the plain terms of Code § 110-702 must yield to that Code section.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Bell and Judges Hall and Eberhardt concur in this dissent.