*1 оf this the circumstances summary under grant plaintiff case not be the failure of by could waived juris- of lack except ground casе to matter not be diction, jurisdiction waived. grant the jurisdiction to entertain and court was erred judgment, and summary defendant’s motion for in granting it.
Judgment Parnell, JJ., Frankum (two BONER v. cases). et al. SOLTERO Boner, Clarence plaintiff Pannell, husband, and Boner, plaintiff Doris wife, brought separate suits, sеek- ing recovery damages out arising a multiple automobile collision, Samuel M. Slotin, car, driver of one A. Victor Soltero, driver of car, Soltero, another and Victor M. the father of Victor A. Soltero, the family car doctrine. The petition in both cases, far so as material here, that all these cars were on ramp express- which entered way; that the by car driven plаintiff wife was immedi- ately behind a truck; plaintiff behind the wife a car was driven Slotin; and him a car younger behind driven Soltero; that the began trаck to move forward onto ex- pressway and the plaintiff began to move slowly forward at a speed of five to ten pеr hour; plaintiff miles began wife’s automobile forward suddenly move and violently struck behind .from automobile driven by Slotin then there operаted by a speed Slotin at per hour, 15 miles greater; that within one or two seconds thereafter the automobile Soltero сrashed vio- lently into the knocking rear of the automobile, again same plaintiff into and the rear of the automobile; multiplе that as impacts, result said head, suddenly neck and shoulders wife were violently repeated backwards and thrown forwards “whipcracking” motion, great bodily which caused her jury damage. negligence, principally Various acts of .closely following keeрing proper related lookout, driver two oc-
was further various acts of in time to cause simultaneously curred and conсurred negli- that said concurrent acts of collision and gence all of part proximately of defendants did cause damаge wife and the the injury *2 her; that in each said col- husband’s automobile of vio-' head, neck and shoulders were the lisions, lently and that sаid collisions thrown back forth of together sprain strain and her sustain severe did cause to tissues, joints her the tendons and of ligaments, nеck.. muscles, grounds petitions on the to the The defendant demurred of action that and distinct causes petition separate the misjoins petition the separate defendants and in that the was not liable parties defendant Slotin defendant defendants, thе the for cause of other action, nor liable for the cause of were other defendants Soltero de- any, allegеd against if The defendants Slotin. grounds to- petitions substantially the same to murred petition which gether paragraph to a with injury substantially single property constituted to husband’s brought the concur- about respective plaintiffs jury to the grounds of demurrer rent These negligence of amend. re- Upon leave to with sustained respective petitions, their to plaintiffs fusal amend rulings his judge and petitions by the triаl were dismissed upon separate are here bills for review Held: error thereon. although persons combine, negligent of two
1. “Where acts person to a third simultaneously, injury causé done the first tort- the release joint tortfeasors, and they Hosch, 104 City feasor will release other.” Buford contrary SE2d 251) in Divi- Matson, Close v. being that case was criticized opinion sion 2 of Johnson, McDougal v. obitеr dictum Hosch, City 417), of Buford petition case suf- supra. opinion, In our injury caused both collisions alleges ficiently though voluntary, “that evеn the rule within come lacking, separate independent if the intentional concert is persons naturally combine negligenсe acts several directly produce single injury, they may jointly, be sued despite the fact that the injury might been not have had only one of there occurred; acts any all recovery responsible one of the Longino ties.” Moore, 53 Ga. Akin
also Brantley, 2. It thаt the trial the demur- court erred excepted respective petitions
rers to and in upon respective plaintiffs failurе of to amend. Ffankum,
Judgments Felton, J., J., C. Rehearing 9, 1964 Decided denied October October
Paul I. Myers, Aynes, plaintiffs C. William error. Lokey Bowden, Pоwell, Hamilton Lokey, Frick, Glenn Gold- stein, Murphy, Rogers, Frazer & B. Wilson, Jr., C. Warner R. contra. Rehearing.
On Motion for Demurrers to a petition grounds misjoinder on the ties and causes of action special demurrers, McCullough v. Refining Co., (2) (182 Atlantic 181 898), Ga. 502 Farmers SE Merchants (85 513), Bank v. (2) 211 Gibson, Ga. 270 while the sustaining of demurrers, more, may such without adjudication final absence, of exceptions thereto, Bugg, (133 Smith v. 49), 35 Ga. 317 SE is not a judgment final support which will a bill exceptions direct this (79 court. Harrell Co., v. Southern R. 13 Ga. 409 SE 240). such a time ruling, with does amend, not judgment become such final after the time for amendment expired. has where, after the And, time allowed amendment expired has without the filing of an trial amendment, the judge, amend, because of failurе to the petition dismisses on motion demurrant, bill of assigning error on such final judgment of dismissal prior and also error on the ruling presents on dеmurrer, properly to. this court for decision question whether trial court erred in sustaining Orange Elliott Bottling such demurrers. See Crush Co., 56 (192 530). (1) 313 SE As to the involving 520 Edge, McSwain v. special demurrers, sustaining Little, (3) (64 (2) White SE F. C. see Clark v. S. general demurrers, As to SE 473). The sus
Acceptance App. 180 Corp., 109 Ga. petition does not plaintiff’s taining special demurrer of a although judgment petition, ipso facto work dismissal offered, has been and no amendment thereon been entered has shall amend require that not where the order does the amend in case dismissal petition, penalty Publishing v. Lowe, Co. be filed.” ment shall not News exceptions presented within bill of The App. 333 SE late, is even dismissal days judgment the time for amendment has after days than presented more Georgia &c. Kelly R. decision of expired. The 401), holding Co., Ga. judgment a final case is that in the
of such
petition,
expressly
an additional order
Eberhardt, Truck rari to Record *4 having our 65) and affirmed thereof, Rec portion judgment therein, disapproving ord Truck to conform with be altered
with direction our portion Supreme Court, hereby vacate that of the in an held that recover judgment in which beyond injuries occurring in a collision personal engaged motor carrier a nonresident limits of State designated process commerce, interstate solely