Crowley v. Ford Motor Credit Company

2 Citing cases

  1. McEachern v. Muldovan

    234 Ga. App. 152 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 9 times
    In McEachern v. Muldovan, 234 Ga. App. 152 (505 S.E.2d 495), a majority of this Court held that civil liability was authorized in a wrongful death (handgun shooting) case based on an alleged violation of OCGA § 16-11-101.

    The statute is not limited to negligent torts; rather it clearly encompasses all torts including those based on wilful, wanton, or intentional misconduct. Jarrett v. Butts, 190 Ga. App. 703-705 ( 379 S.E.2d 583) (1989) and Spikes v. Heath, 175 Ga. App. 187, 189-190 ( 332 S.E.2d 889) (1985) (recognizing the application of the consent defense of § 51-11-2 to intentional tort claims of assault and battery); J. H. Harvey Co. v. Speight, 178 Ga. App. 812, 813-814 ( 344 S.E.2d 701) (1986) (concluding that the consent provisions of § 51-11-2 precluded a claim for the intentional tort of assault and battery); Crowley v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 168 Ga. App. 162 ( 308 S.E.2d 417) (1983) (applying the consent defense under § 51-11-2 to affirm the grant of summary judgment to a defendant sued for the intentional tort of conversion); Roberts, 102 Ga. App. at 520-523 (holding that the consent defense set forth in § 51-11-2 was a defense to a claim for wilful and wanton misconduct); see also Adams Adams, Ga. Law of Torts (1997 ed.), § 2-8 (citing the consent provisions of § 51-11-2 as a defense to intentional torts). A close examination of cases cited by the majority shows that they are not persuasive authority on the issue of whether McEachern is barred from recovery under the consent principle embodied in the assumption of risk defense.

  2. J. H. Harvey Company v. Speight

    178 Ga. App. 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that "the tort [of false imprisonment] is complete with even a brief restraint of the plaintiff’s freedom"

    With regard to the second count of the complaint, the appellee admitted that any touching of his person had been invited by him; and such invitation is inconsistent with the tort of assault and battery. See Crowley v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 168 Ga. App. 162 (1) ( 308 S.E.2d 417) (1983); OCGA § 51-11-2. The evidence was consequently insufficient to support any recovery, and it follows that the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion for directed verdict.