Ga. Court of Appeals Throws Out $30M Hand Verdict
“It is the duty of the trial court, whether requested or not, to give the juryappropriate instructions on every substantial and vital issue presented by theevidence, and on every theory of the case,” Judge Christopher McFadden said.
March 16, 2018 at 01:00 PM
3 minute read
The Georgia Court of Appeals has tossed a $30 million verdict for an injured hand.
“Because the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on a substantial and vital issue presented by the pleadings and the evidence—the defendant's theory that his alleged negligence per se was unknowing and unintentional—we must reverse and remand for a new trial,” Presiding Judge Christopher McFadden wrote for a panel that included Judges Elizabeth Branch and Charlie Bethel.
“It is the duty of the trial court, whether requested or not, to give the jury appropriate instructions on every substantial and vital issue presented by the evidence, and on every theory of the case,” McFadden said. “Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of negligence per se, the 'burden then shifts to the defendant to show that the violation was unintentional and in the exercise of ordinary care.'”
What became known as the $30 million hand verdict was delivered for injuries to a woman's hand and arm during a trial before Fulton County State Court Judge Eric Richardson in 2016.
The injury was caused by a crash that happened in 2012 when Abdulmohsen Almassud and Luisa Mezquital approached each other driving in opposite directions on a road in Forsyth County. Almassud's Jeep crossed the center line and crashed into Mezquital's car. Mezquital sustained severe injuries to her hand in the collision. When she sued, she alleged that the Jeep was unsafe. He claimed the steering failed and blamed Oh's Auto Center for a faulty repair, McFadden noted.
In oral arguments, Laurie Webb Daniel, chair of Holland & Knight's national appellate team and leader of the firm's Atlanta litigation practice, told the court she wouldn't belabor the sheer amount of the verdict—although she did mention it was “many, many times” in excess of judgments in comparable cases. Instead she focused on Richardson's instructions to the jury.
The judge, Daniel said, declined to include in the jury charge the sole defense raised by her client: that he lost control of his Jeep because of a mechanical defect in the steering. He had recently modified the Jeep for off-road use.
“We are pleased, of course, to get such a well-reasoned and unanimous decision in favor of our client, Mr. Almassud,” Daniel said Thursday.
Ben Brodhead of Brodhead Law won the $30 million verdict for Mezquital and defended it at oral arguments.
“Obviously, in a case of this importance, we expect further appeals,” Brodhead said Thursday in an email. “The ruling will likely have a far-reaching effect. Now, when a defendant presents even slight evidence that his violation of a statute was unintentional and in the exercise of ordinary care, the trial court must be reversed for failing to create a jury charge on this topic. This is true even when the defendant fails to ask for such a charge. Since there is no Pattern Charge, the trial courts have not been instructing the juries as required by the Court of Appeals. The ruling will likely cause a rush to the appellate courts to reverse every plaintiff's verdict involving negligence per se. Making this jury charge mandatory will impact almost all car wreck cases as well as all cases involving negligence per se.”
The case is Almassud v. Mezquital, No. A17A2119.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAkerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readWoman's Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
Supreme Court of Georgia Accepts 2 Petitions for Voluntary Discipline With 2-Year Suspension, 1 Voluntary Surrender of License
Trending Stories
- 1$83M Verdict After $100K Demand Rejected in Henry County
- 2Samsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
- 3How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 4On the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
- 5Review of Ex-parte orders by the Appellate Division
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250