Legal Opinion

Koutras v. Lazarus

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 26, 1970No. 45349PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. Huckabee v. GraceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
  2. Lloyd Adams Inc. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
  3. Hines v. BellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
  4. Frankel v. ConeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1959
  5. Rogers v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Durrett v. FarrarCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
  2. Finnocchio v. LunsfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
  3. Wilson v. OrtizCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
  4. Kirkland v. CrawfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
  5. Durrett v. FarrarCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973

3 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