Legal Opinion

Martin v. Gurley

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided October 11, 1946No. 15591PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. TiceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  2. Frazier v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1897
  3. Roberts v. HainesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
  4. Sessions v. ParkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
  5. Bell v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. City of Commerce v. BradfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
  2. Martin v. GurleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
  3. Deese v. ParksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
  4. Fortner v. McCorkleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
  5. Neely v. KossoveNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1984

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API