O.C.G.A. § 51-12-10 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS When remote damages recoverable. - Damages traceable to a tortious act, but not its legal or natural consequence, are too remote and contingent to be recoverable unless the original actor, whose act would not otherwise be the legal or natural cause of the damages, acts knowingly for the purpose of bringing about the injury. Hodge v. Dixon, 119 Ga. App. 397, 167 S.E.2d 377 (1969). False messages sent by telegraph operator. - When a telegraph operator knowingly sends false, fraudulent, and fictitious messages, which are intended to and do deceive the addressee, liability for loss of profits is not too remote. Jenkins v. Cobb, 47 Ga. App. 456, 170 S.E. 698 (1933). Illegal voting of stock. - When stockholders falsely and fraudulently vote stock that has been bought by the plaintiff, and defeat the plaintiff ’s election as president of the corporation, the plaintiff may recover any loss that the plaintiff has sustained. Witham v. Cohen, 100 Ga. 670, 28 S.E. 505 (1897). Interference with attorney’s contract. - Since an attorney’s contract of employment, though contingent in nature, is a property right, when the plaintiff alleges a wrongful and willful invasion of that right by the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for it - at least nominal damages. This is true even if no special damages are proven. Bankers Health & Life Ins. Co. v. Fryhofer, 114 Ga. App. 107, 150 S.E.2d 365 (1966).

Right of beneficiary interfered with. - A beneficiary named by a member in a certificate issued by a benefit society may recover damages from a third person who fraudulently induces the member to change the certificate and name the third party as beneficiary. Mitchell v. Langley, 143 Ga. 827, 85 S.E. 1050 (1915). Remote damages not allowed for bankruptcy trustee. - Bankruptcy trustee was not entitled to jury consideration of remote damages under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-10 since the trustee’s claim was that the debtor’s former attorney’s violation of fiduciary duties owed to the debtor caused an excess judgment and the amount owed on the judgment because, even assuming that the attorneys knowingly violated fiduciary duties to the debtor, as alleged, there was no evidence that any violation was for the purpose of imposing an excess verdict on the debtor. Whiteside v. Decker, Hallman, Barber & Briggs, P.C., 310 Ga. App. 16, 712 S.E.2d 87 (2011). Future profits must be provable. - O.C.G.A. § 51-12-10 does not authorize the recovery of anticipated future profits by a business that has not made any profits in the past; such damages cannot be recovered for the reason that the damages are not provable rather than that the defendant’s act is too remote. Blue Ridge Mt. Fisheries, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 217 Ga. App. 89, 456 S.E.2d 651 (1995).

Pleading of damages. - When damages are claimed, the facts must be alleged showing the special damage claimed. Montgomery v. Alexander Lumber Co., 140 Ga. 51, 78 S.E. 413 (1913). Jury question. - When a bank customer proved that wrongful dishonor of a check created a default the customer could not cure, the customer’s subsequent failures, primarily of omission, and other happenings would lessen the damages, but would not remove the bank’s wrongful dishonor as a matter of law; that remains to be determined as a question of fact and is an issue for the jury. Malak v. First Nat’l Bank, 195 Ga. App. 105, 393 S.E.2d 267 (1990).

Cited in Georgia R.R. v. Hayden, 71 Ga. 518, 51 Am. R. 274 (1883); Savannah, Fla. & W. Ry. v. Pritchard, Matthews & Co., 77 Ga. 412, 1 S.E. 261, 4 Am. St. R. 92 (1886); Toccoa Falls Light & Power Co. v. Georgia Power Co., 53 Ga. App. 522, 186 S.E. 436 (1936); Slater v. Russell, 100 Ga. App. 563, 112 S.E.2d 178 (1959); Roswell Apts., Inc. v. D.L. Stokes & Co., 105 Ga. App. 163, 123 S.E.2d 682 (1961); Dukes v. Pure Oil Co., 112 Ga. App. 111, 143 S.E.2d 769 (1965); Maryland Cas. Ins. Co. v. Welchel, 181 Ga. App. 224, 351 S.E.2d 645 (1986); John D. Robinson Corp. v. Southern Marine & Indus. Supply Co., 196 Ga. App. 402, 395 S.E.2d 837 (1990).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 25 C.J.S., Damages, § 36 et seq. ALR. - ‘‘Out of pocket’’ or ‘‘benefit of bargain’’ as proper rule of damages for fraudulent representations inducing, contract for the transfer of property, 13 ALR3d 875.

Tenant’s right to damages for landlord’s breach of tenant’s option to purchase, 17 ALR3d 976. Profits of business as factor in determining loss of earnings or earning capacity in action for personal injury or death, 45 ALR3d 345.