The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed a trial court that refused to apply the indivisible judgment rule based on the underlying court's holding that the "indivisible judgment rule was only intended to apply to cases where liability is subject to apportionment." Federal Express Corp., v. Denney, A22A0763, 2022 WL 5239281,*3 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2022).
In Georgia, a judgment rendered against two or more joint tortfeasors is single and indivisible, at least to the extent that the damages awarded therein are a joint liability of the defendants and are not apportioned among them. Merry v. Robinson, 313 Ga. App. 321, 324-325 (2), 721 S.E.2d 567 (2011). When a court sets aside such a judgment as to some, but not all, of the defendants, the indivisible nature of the judgment sometimes requires that it also be set aside as to the other defendants. Id. One circumstance in which a judgment must be set aside as to all of the defendants, we have explained before, is when fewer than all of the defendants are released from an indivisible judgment for reasons other than on the merits, as shown by the evidence in the case, such as lack of venue or lack of service. Id. In that circumstance, the liability of the defendants released from the judgment for reasons other than on the merits has not been extinguished, and they still may be held to account for the injury done to the plaintiff, whether in the court in which the original judgment was entered or in some other court. Id.
The trial court's reasoning that the indivisible judgment rules could not apply was based on the belief that liability could not be legally apportioned in a case involving vicarious liability. Federal Express Corp., 2022 WL 5239281 at*3. However, relying on a 1959 Supreme Court of Georgia case, the Court of Appeals found, "a judgment rendered against two or more joint tortfeasors that is single and indivisible must stand or fall in toto, and these 'same principles apply to a master and servant when sued jointly in an action based solely on the negligence of the servant (as in the case here), as would apply in cases of joint liability against joint tortfeasors; and the verdict and judgment must be valid against both or it is valid against neither.'” Id. quoting Southeastern Truck Lines v. Rann, 214 Ga. 813, 817, 108 S.E.2d 561 (1959).
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's refusal to set aside judgment against all the defendants.