Patterson v. Lopez

The defendant could not be held liable for an accident involving his vehicle under the family purpose doctrine, since the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendant's assertion that the driver was not a member of his immediate household.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following an automobile collision, Mollie Patterson sued Miguel Garcia, who was driving the van that struck her, and Domingo Lopez, the owner of the van. Garcia moved to dismiss the complaint based upon insufficient service of process. Lopez filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he could not be held liable for Garcia’s alleged negligence. The trial court granted both motions. In six enumerations of error, Patterson challenges the trial court’s order granting Garcia’s motion to dismiss. In a seventh enumeration of error, Patterson contends the trial court erred in granting Lopez’s motion for summary judgment. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. As a threshold matter, we must consider whether Patterson has preserved her claims against Garcia. Although the trial court issued two separate orders, Patterson’s notice of appeal expressly states that her appeal was from the “Order of the trial court . . . granting Summary Judgment to . . . Lopez.” This Court has held on several occasions that a litigant is required to specify each order appealed in the notice of appeal and that failure to do so precludes appellate review of any order not specified.1 Under this line of reasoning, Patterson’s failure to include the trial court’s ruling on Garcia’s motion to dismiss in her notice of appeal is fatal to her claim.

We note, however, that the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to address this issue. And our Supreme Court has held that “when a direct appeal is taken, any other judgments, rulings or orders rendered in the case and which may affect the proceedings below may be raised on appeal and reviewed and determined by the appellate court” including those orders not listed in the notice of appeal.2 Given the uncertainty in this area of law, we will address Patterson’s claims notwithstanding her poorly drafted notice of appeal. In any event, we find Patterson’s enumerations of error lack merit.

Patterson v. Lopez

The defendant could not be held liable for an accident involving his vehicle under the family purpose doctrine, since the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendant's assertion that the driver was not a member of his immediate household.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report