DocketNumber: 41466
Citation Numbers: 324 S.E.2d 453, 253 Ga. 685
Judges: Smith, Weltner
Filed Date: 1/7/1985
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 8/7/2023
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Robert M. Goldberg, for appellant.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Jeffrey W. Kelley, Drew, Eckl & Farnham, B. Holland Pritchard, for appellees.
WELTNER, Justice.
The issue on appeal is whether OCGA § 34-9-11 conflicts with the Constitution of Georgia of 1976, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XXIV, insofar as it purports to bar a wife's cause of action against her husband's employer for loss of consortium.
OCGA § 34-9-11 is the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, supplanting the common law with an absolute liability of an employer, and fixed entitlements for an employee and "his personal representative, parents, dependents, or next of kin, at common law or otherwise." The legislative intent of the statute was to bring the entire family group within its coverage. Gulf States Ceramic v. Fenster, 228 Ga. 400 (185 SE2d 801) (1971). Therefore, if a wife's injury is covered by workers' compensation, her husband's common law action for loss of consortium is barred. Williams v. Byrd, 242 Ga. 80 (247 SE2d 874) (1978).
At common law, a wife had no claim for loss of consortium. That right was first recognized in Brown v. Ga.-Tenn. Coaches, 88 Ga. App. 519 (77 SE2d 24) (1953), after the passage of the Workers' Compensation Act. The right of the wife is not absolute, however. "`One spouse's right of action for the loss of the other's society or consortium is a derivative one, stemming from the right of the other.... *686 Since appellees are not liable for injuries to appellant, they are not liable to appellant's wife for loss of consortium attributable to those injuries.'" Douberly v. Okefenokee Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 146 Ga. App. 568, 570 (246 SE2d 708) (1978).
Here, the husband has no tort claim against his employer because he is covered by the Act, and his wife has no claim for loss of consortium, which is derivative from his right. Her property right could only vest if his cause of action be vested, which, of course, it is not. The claim of constitutional deprivation is without merit.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Smith, J., who dissents.
Gulf States Ceramic v. Fenster , 228 Ga. 400 ( 1971 )
Sherrie Brown v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. , 626 F. App'x 793 ( 2015 )
Mary Goodman v. Clayton County Sheriff Kemuel Kimbrough , 718 F.3d 1325 ( 2013 )
Warden v. Hoar Construction Co. , 269 Ga. 715 ( 1998 )
Georgia Department of Human Resources v. Joseph Campbell Co. , 261 Ga. 822 ( 1992 )
Smith v. Gortman , 261 Ga. 206 ( 1991 )
Hitachi Chemical Electro-Products, Inc. v. Gurley , 219 Ga. App. 675 ( 1995 )
Gullock v. Spectrum Sciences and Software, Inc. , 146 F. Supp. 2d 1364 ( 2001 )
White v. Hubbard , 203 Ga. App. 255 ( 1992 )
Atlanta Braves, Inc. v. Leslie , 190 Ga. App. 49 ( 1989 )
Miller v. Ford Motor Co. , 287 Ga. App. 642 ( 2007 )
Alpharetta First United Methodist Church v. Stewart , 221 Ga. App. 748 ( 1996 )
Mann v. Workman , 181 Ga. App. 211 ( 1986 )
Johnson v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority , 230 Ga. App. 105 ( 1998 )
Zaytzeff v. Safety-Kleen Corp. , 222 Ga. App. 48 ( 1996 )
McCurley v. Whitaker Oil Co. , 193 Ga. App. 527 ( 1989 )
Archer v. Roadrunner Trucking, Inc. , 122 N.M. 703 ( 1996 )