Court Opinion

ID: 9852010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:22:59.033093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:21.158108
License: Public Domain

Nichols, Justice.
A collision occurred between a vehicle owned by Mrs. Julia H. Glover and being operated by *875her husband, Carlton Henry Glover, and a truck owned by and being operated by an employee of Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company in the course of its business. An agreement was reached as to the damage to Mrs. Glover’s automobile and a release as to property damage to the automobile executed by both Mr. and Mrs. Glover. Thereafter, Carlton Henry Glover filed an action to recover for his personal injuries and the release was pleaded as a defense. By amendment to the original complaint the plaintiff sought to have the release set aside. Depositions were taken and a motion for summary judgment based upon such depositions was filed by the defendants. The trial court sustained the motion for summary judgment and the present appeal was filed. The sole enumeration of error complains of the grant of the summary judgment. Held:
1. Where a release is general, i.e. one that releases the alleged tortfeasor from liability for all claims arising out of an occurrence, in the absence of fraud such release will bar any cause of action by the person executing such release. See Gregory v. Schnurstein, 212 Ga. 497 (93 SE2d 680). Yet under James v. Tarpley, 209 Ga. 421 (1) (73 SE2d 188), a release that by its terms relates solely to designated property damage and does not include a complete release may be executed and will be enforced according to its terms.
2. The release in the case sub judice released the defendants ". . . from any and all present and future claims for property damage to a 1963 Thunderbird arising out of an accident involving company vehicle No. G6-1587-20, which occurred on or about the 14th day of August, 1967 . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) The release did not contain any terms which could be deemed as a general release of all claims or of any claim except the property damage to the automobile.
3. Although the plaintiff was not entitled to have the release set aside, the judgment of the trial court sustaining the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based *876upon the ground that the release barred the present action for personal injuries must be reversed.
Argued November 15, 1972
Decided December 4, 1972
Rehearing denied December 18, 1972.
Robert John White, Larry Jewett, for appellant.
Matthew H. Patton, Tim Carssow, for appellees.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.