In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: May 11, 2015
S14G1775. OLIVER et al. v. MCDADE et al.
MELTON, Justice.
In Oliver v. McDade, 328 Ga. App. 368 (762 SE2d 96) (2014), the Court
of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for partial summary
judgment brought by Crider Transportation and Jerome Oliver, finding that a
question of fact remained whether John McDade could pursue a claim for
emotional distress pursuant to the pecuniary loss rule.1 We thereafter granted
Oliver’s petition for certiorari to consider the propriety of this ruling. For the
reasons set forth below, we affirm.
As set forth by the Court of Appeals, the facts of this summary judgment
case viewed in favor of the nonmovant, McDade, show that
McDade was riding as a passenger in his own truck, which was
being driven by his close friend Matthew Wood on I–16 in Dublin,
1
“[F]or a pecuniary loss to support a claim for damages for emotional
distress, the pecuniary loss must occur as a result of a tort involving an injury
to the person even though this injury may not be physical.” OB-GYN Assoc.
of Albany v. Littleton, 259 Ga. 663, 667 (B) (386 SE2d 146) (1989).
Georgia. McDade, Wood, and others were returning home late at
night from a dirt car race in which Wood had competed, and Wood
was towing his race car on a trailer behind McDade's truck. Just
after driving the truck down the on-ramp onto the interstate, Wood
noticed that something on the trailer was not secured, and he pulled
over to the shoulder. Wood then exited the truck and walked back
toward the trailer. A tractor-trailer owned by Crider Transportation
and operated by Jerome Oliver swerved onto the shoulder and
struck Wood's trailer and McDade's truck. Wood was crushed
between the trailer and the truck and killed instantly. The impact
threw McDade against the interior of his truck, shattered the glass
in the rear of the truck's cab, and propelled blood and tissue from
Wood's body onto McDade. McDade then got out of his truck,
discovered Wood's mangled body lying partially in the road, and
protected it from further damage by passing vehicles until
emergency personnel arrived. Due to the collision, McDade has
suffered neck, back and knee injuries, as well as headaches,
insomnia, flashbacks, anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts. He
sought psychiatric help, was diagnosed as suffering from major
depression as a result of the collision, and was prescribed various
medications. Based on the collision, McDade brought a negligence
claim against Oliver, Crider, and Crider's liability insurance carrier.
The defendants sought partial summary judgment on any of
McDade's claims based on emotional distress arising from having
witnessed the injuries to Wood. The trial court initially granted the
defendants' motion, ruling that Georgia's impact rule bars
bystanders from recovering damages for emotional distress
resulting from witnessing another person's injuries, but later the trial
court granted a motion for reconsideration, finding that McDade
could pursue a claim for emotional distress under the pecuniary loss
rule. [The Court of Appeals] granted the defendants' application for
interlocutory review, and [affirmed the denial of the motion for
partial summary judgment].
Id. at 368-369 (762 SE2d 96) (2014).
2
As recognized by the Court of Appeals, McDade's complaint alleges that
“all of his injuries, damages and suffering were the direct result of and
proximately caused by the negligence of [Oliver].” McDade does not attempt to
separately recover for the emotional distress of witnessing his friend's suffering
and death, and, in fact, he does not dispute that he cannot recover solely for
these injuries, at least under the impact rule.2 In addition, McDade deposed that
he attributed his emotional injuries both to witnessing his friend’s death and his
own physical injuries related to his neck, back, and knee. He testified that, at
least in part, his emotional distress sprang from “being hurt, not being at work.
I stopped getting paid in February. I haven't had income since. . . .” As a result,
it is currently not possible to determine, as a question of fact, whether any
portion of McDade’s emotional distress arises solely from witnessing the
injuries to his friend. For this reason, the Court of Appeals, in Division 1 of its
opinion, properly found that a question of fact remained regarding the allocation
of McDade’s damages and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Oliver’s motion
2
The impact rule may be summarized as follows: “In a claim concerning
negligent conduct, a recovery for emotional distress is allowed only where there
is some impact on the plaintiff, and that impact must be a physical injury.”
Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 (412 SE2d 826) (1992).
3
for summary judgment. Accordingly, we, in turn, affirm the Court of Appeals
finding in Division 1.
In Division 2 of its opinion, however, the Court of Appeals went further
to assume facts not fully developed and opine as to how the law would apply to
assumed facts. These issues were not ripe for consideration. Therefore, while we
affirm the Court of Appeals holding, we must vacate Division 2 of the opinion.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
4