Supreme Court of Georgia, 1985

Smith, Miller & Patch v. Lorentzson

Supreme Court of Georgia · Decided March 15, 1985 · Bell, Hill

327 S.E.2d 221; 254 Ga. 111; 1985 Ga. LEXIS 647 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Wheeler v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia 2013)
Gropper v. STO CORP. (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)
In re Webb (United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia 2012)
McKoon v. Jones (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)
Murphy v. Sears Roebuck & Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)
Hill v. Fordham (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)
Adair v. Baker Bros., Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)
Lewis v. Atlanta Casualty Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)
James Brown v. E.T. Browne Drug Company (11th Cir. 2026)
Jones v. Ethicon, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia 2021)
ELLIS v. WARREN (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 2020)
Passatempo v. McMenimen (Mass. 2012)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Concurring Opinion

Hill, Chief Justice,

concurring.

I concur in the majority opinion and in the judgment. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals said: “Under . . . the facts of this case admitted by the parties and uncontroverted, this court is unable to ascertain when and if the statute of limitation began to run as to . . . the products liability.” Thus, a jury issue is presented. King v. Seitzingers, 160 Ga. App. 318 (287 SE2d 252) (1981).

Opinion of the Court

Bell, Justice.

Lorentzson, the plaintiff, appealed orders granting summary judgment to Dr. Rowell and Smith, Miller and Patch, the co-defendants in this case. The Court of Appeals reversed both judgments, Lorentzson v. Rowell, 171 Ga. App. 821 (321 SE2d 341) (1984), and each co-defendant applied for a writ of certiorari. We denied Dr. Rowell’s application, but granted certiorari in Smith, Miller and Patch’s appeal to consider the following questions: “Whether the two year limitation period provided in OCGA § 9-3-33 applies to this product liability action? If so, does the alleged fraud of the physician toll the statute of limitations as to the manufacturer?”

1. The Court of Appeals held that “the statute of limitation . . . [a]s to products liability ... is now ten years (OCGA § 51-1-11, formerly Code Ann. § 105-106).” Lorentzson, supra, 171 Ga. App. at 825. This is incorrect. The nature of the injury sustained in this case is an injury to the person, and OCGA § 9-3-33 therefore applies to Lorentz-son’s products liability claims. Daniel v. American Optical Corp., 251 Ga. 166 (304 SE2d 383) (1983).

2. OCGA § 9-3-96 provides that “[i]f the defendant or those under whom he claims are guilty of a fraud by which the plaintiff has been debarred or deterred from bringing an action, the period of limitation shall run only from the time of the plaintiff’s discovery of the fraud.” See Trust Co. Bank v. Union Circulation Co., 241 Ga. 343 (245 SE2d 297) (1978). Smith, Miller and Patch is not “claiming under” Dr. Rowell, and his alleged fraud is therefore not imputable to the manufacturer so as to toll the statute of limitation. Id.

With the exception of the language disapproved in Division 1 *112of this opinion, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Decided March 15, 1985. Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Ben L. Weinberg, Jr., M. Diane Owens, for appellant. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James T. McDonald, Jr., Hart & Sullivan, George W. Hart, Alexander H. Booth, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.