Bolin v. PENNSYLVANIA THRESHERMEN & FARMERS MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
Opinion
92 Ga. App. 726 (1955) 89 S.E.2d 831
BOLIN
v.
PENNSYLVANIA THRESHERMEN & FARMERS MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. et al.
35788.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Decided September 27, 1955. Rehearing Denied October 11, 1955.
Benjamin Zeesman, for plaintiff in error.
Wright & Reddick, Geo. P. Wright, contra.
QUILLIAN, J.
1. A person engaged in the business of a motor common carrier under a certificate issued by the Public Service Commission cannot be sued in a county other than that of his residence for personal injuries or damage resulting from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle used in the conduct of the business. Youmans v. Hickman, 179 Ga. 684 ( 177 S. E. 238 ).
2. A common carrier that negligently injures a person, and the insurance company that issues the carrier an indemnity policy under the provisions of Code § 68-612, are neither joint tortfeasors nor joint contractors, so as to bring the carrier and the insurance company within the provisions of Code (Ann.) § 2-4904, permitting suit to be instituted against joint obligors or joint tortfeasors in the county of either. The liability of the carrier to the injured person arises from a tort in the commission of which the insurance company is not concerned. The insurance company's obligation to pay the damages caused by the carrier's negligence is a contractual duty not assumed by the carrier. It follows that, while by special statute (Code § 68-612), joinder of the carrier and insurance company in the same action is permitted, a natural person engaged in the business of a common carrier cannot be joined with the insurance company in a suit instituted elsewhere than in the county where he resides.
Judgment affirmed. Felton, C. J., and Nichols J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.