Koutras v. Lazarus
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Presiding Judge.
The plaintiff contends that Lazarus by virtue of his co-ownership of the jeep owed her a duty not to maintain it in a defective condition. We disagree. The law of Georgia is plain and unambiguous in holding that: "To allow any recovery” based upon mere ownership of an automobile "would deprive the defendant of property without due process of law, would authorize a recovery without liability, and would compel payment without fault.” Frankel v. Cone, 214 Ga. 733, 736 (107 SE2d 819); Lloyd Adams, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 190 Ga. 633, 641 (10 SE2d 46). See also Hines…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Huckabee v. GraceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
- Lloyd Adams Inc. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Hines v. BellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
- Frankel v. ConeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1959
- Rogers v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Durrett v. FarrarCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Finnocchio v. LunsfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Wilson v. OrtizCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
- Kirkland v. CrawfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Durrett v. FarrarCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.