Horton v. Dennis

The trial court properly refused to submit the plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees to the jury, as the record contained evidence that the defendants genuinely disputed the issue of the proximate cause of certain injuries the plaintiff sustained as well as the amount of damages.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Raford and Virginia Horton filed this personal injury action in the Superior Court of Telfair County against Joseph Dennis, The Putnam Group, LLC, Horton Iron Works, LLC, and Horton Iron Works’ liability insurer collectively, “the appellees”. On the eve of trial, the Hortons added a claim for attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11, alleging that, by denying liability until the eve of trial and then stipulating to liability and going to trial on damages only, the appellees had been stubbornly litigious and caused them unnecessary trouble and expense. The appellees moved for judgment as a matter of law on the Hortons’ attorney fee claim. After a hearing, the trial court granted the appellees’ motion, and the Hortons appeal. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Hortons as the nonmovants,1 the record shows the following. On October 27, 2008, Mr. Horton was severely injured when a tractor-trailer operated by Joseph Dennis an employee of Horton Iron Works, LLC and under the interstate motor carrier authority of The Putnam Group, LLC crossed the center line of Ga. Highway 31 near McRae and crashed into Mr. Horton’s truck. In addition to injuries requiring multiple joint replacements, debridements, and other surgeries, the Hortons claim that, as a result of the wreck, Mr. Horton also suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, which impairs his memory and mental function, and damage to his sacral or pudendal nerves, which results in permanent loss of erectile function.

Horton v. Dennis

The trial court properly refused to submit the plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees to the jury, as the record contained evidence that the defendants genuinely disputed the issue of the proximate cause of certain injuries the plaintiff sustained as well as the amount of damages.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report