From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hart v. Eldridge

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jan 25, 1983
299 S.E.2d 560 (Ga. 1983)

Opinion

39116.

DECIDED JANUARY 25, 1983. REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 16, 1983.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 163 Ga. App. 295 ( 293 S.E.2d 550).

Warner R. Wilson, Jr., N. Sandy Epstein, for appellant.

Wade H. Coleman, for appellee.


1. Certiorari was granted to determine whether or not Mrs. Hart's wrongful death claim is barred by OCGA § 9-3-71 (Code Ann. § 3-1102). This question was answered in the affirmative in Division of the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Hart v. Eldridge, 163 Ga. App. 295, 298 (2) ( 293 S.E.2d 550) (1982).

Consistent with our recent decision of Clark v. Singer, 250 Ga. 470 ( 298 S.E.2d 484) (1983), the certiorari question must be answered in the negative, in that the statute of limitations for a wrongful death action emanating from medical malpractice begins to run from the date of death, not from the date of the negligent act or omission of the practitioner.

2. We need not reach the question of whether or not the first decision of the Court of Appeals in Hart v. Eldridge, 158 Ga. App. 834 ( 282 S.E.2d 369) (1981), continues as the law of this case, despite our disapproval of its reasoning in Allrid v. Emory University, 249 Ga. 35, 38 ( 285 S.E.2d 521) (1982), because the effect of our present decision is identical to that of the first Hart decision by the Court of Appeals.

Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.


DECIDED JANUARY 25, 1983 — REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 16, 1983.


Summaries of

Hart v. Eldridge

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jan 25, 1983
299 S.E.2d 560 (Ga. 1983)
Case details for

Hart v. Eldridge

Case Details

Full title:HART v. ELDRIDGE

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Jan 25, 1983

Citations

299 S.E.2d 560 (Ga. 1983)
250 Ga. 526

Citing Cases

Allrid v. Emory University

However, it is with the greatest reluctance that I join the dissent of Judge Sognier with regard to Division…

Navistar Intl. v. Ogletree

Thus, our holding in Ogletree I is the law of the case and must be followed. Both defendants cite this…