O'HARA v. Gilmore, 310 Ga. App. 620

Accident occurred October 18, 2006; Gilmore sues Caitlin Caitlin and O'Hara parents for injuries.
Gilmore alleged Caitlin negligent and O'Haras derivative liability under family purpose doctrine.
Caitlin was served September 27, 2008; attempts to serve Caitlin in California failed.
Caitlin filed special appearance; trial court dismissed Caitlin with prejudice for insufficient service.
O'Haras moved for summary judgment; trial court denied it; Court of Appeals reviews de novo and reverses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Caitlin's dismissal defeat derivative liability against O'Haras?	Gilmore: dismissal forecloses any judgment against Caitlin, blocking vicarious liability.	O'Haras: without service, no valid judgment against Caitlin, precluding family purpose liability.	Yes; derivative liability precluded.
Is a judgment against Caitlin required for the family purpose doctrine to attach?	Gilmore contends some liability may exist despite Caitlin's dismissal.	O'Haras: indivisibility requires valid judgment against all tortfeasors; Caitlin not served breaks this.	Indivisibility requires a valid judgment; not served Caitlin defeats liability.
Was the trial court correct to deny summary judgment given Caitlin's dismissal?	Gilmore argues unresolved statute-of-limitations/ service issues remain.	O'Haras contend lack of service bars Caitlin's judgment and thus derivative liability.	Trial court erred; should have granted summary judgment for O'Haras.
What is the appropriate standard of review for this appeal?	Gilmore relies on standard for appeals of summary judgment.	O'Haras: de novo review on summary judgment.	De novo review applied.

Medlin v. Church, 157 Ga.App. 876 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981) (family purpose doctrine; driver treated as servant; indivisibility of verdict)
Hall v. Hall, 303 Ga.App. 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of de novo review for summary judgments)