Martin v. Gurley
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Head, Justice.
“Every person may recover for torts committed to himself, his wife, his child, his ward, or his servant.” Code, § 105-107. The above section of the Code is a declaration of the common law. See Bell v. Central Railroad, 73 Ga. 520; Frazier v. Ga. R. & Bkg. Co., 101 Ga. 70 (28 S. E. 684). Prior to the Code of 1895, the section which is now § 53-511 was a statement of the common-law rule that only the husband could sue for a tort to the wife. In City of Atlanta v. Dorsey, 73 Ga. 479, it was held that under the Married Woman’s Act (Code, § 53-502) the wife could recover for a tort…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. TiceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Frazier v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Roberts v. HainesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Sessions v. ParkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
- Bell v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- City of Commerce v. BradfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
- Martin v. GurleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
- Deese v. ParksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
- Fortner v. McCorkleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
- Neely v. KossoveNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.