Georgia Court Of Appeals, (February 08, 1973)
Docket number: 47933
ARGUED
EVANS, Judge. - ARGUED
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/garrett-v-two-cases-20482043
Id. vLex: VLEX-20482043
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Judgments affirmed. Hall, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Guest Et Al. v. Mitchell Et Al., 156 Ga. App. 815, 275 S.E.2d 799 (1980)
Henry Wayne Garrett sued Robert S. Garrett and W. S. Pruett Construction Company for property damage and personal injury arising out of collision between two automobiles driven respectively by plaintiff Garrett and defendant Garrett, who were not related to each other. The collision occurred in the vicinity of an intersection of two roads in Cobb County where defendant Pruett was engaged in a construction operation. The petition alleged that plaintiff Garrett was struck in the rear by the defendant Garrett when plaintiff was forced to slow down or stop because of the blockage of the main traveled portion of the road by defendant Pruett's construction equipment.After defendants filed their answers, and after discovery, a pre-trial order was filed. The case came on for trial, and the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to the defendant, W. S. Pruett, who was then ordered dismissed by the court.During the course of the trial, defendant made a motion to dismiss plaintiff's case, contending that the dismissal of the co-defendant with prejudice operated as a bar to any further claim by plaintiff against anyone. Defendant also moved for a directed verdict upon the same ground. Both motions were overruled. A verdict for $100 was returned in favor of plaintiff upon which, judgment was regularly entered.1. Defendant contends that the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to his co-defendant, constitutes a bar to any further claim by plaintiff against any person. Defendant contends that such dismissal was an adjudication on the merits of the case, and extinguished plaintiff's entire claim; and that under such status of the case, a verdict in favor of the remaining defendant was demanded.Under the recent case of North Carolina Mut. Bank v. Peoples Bank, 127 Ga. App. 372 (1) (193 SE2d 571), this court stated the general rule that a plaintiff is not required to join all tortfeasors to recover for damages sustained, nor may the plaintiff be compelled to bring in other tortfeasors; nor is he required to join all tortfeasors in one suit to recover the damages sustained. Also see Wall v. Wall, 211 Ga. 874 (1) (89 SE2d 637).4. For the reason stated above none of the errors enumerated is meritorious.J. M. Grubbs, Jr., Adele Platt, for appellant.1973
Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access