GFI Mgmt. Servs. Inc. v. Medina

A jury is allowed to apportion damages among a property owner and a criminal assailant, and jury charges or a special verdict form requiring such apportionment does not violate a plaintiff's constitutional rights to due process or equal protection.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

On October 9, 2007, appellee Terence Medina was shot in his leg while walking in a DeKalb County apartment complex managed by appellant GFI Management Services, Inc. GFI. The identity of the perpetrator remains unknown. In September 2009, appellee brought a premises liability action against appellant and several other defendants, including his unknown assailant.1 GFI filed a notice of intent to seek apportionment of fault among non-parties as well as parties pursuant to OCGA § 51-12-33 d. Thereafter, appellee filed a motion in limine to exclude all evidence and argument concerning apportionment under OCGA § 51-12-33. On January 11, 2012, the trial court granted the motion in limine, concluding that OCGA § 51-12-33 and OCGA § 51-12-31were unconstitutional. Specifically, the trial court noted that the current language in OCGA § 51-12-31 makes it discretionary for the jury to specify the particular damages to be recovered of each defendant where an action is brought jointly against several persons for an injury caused by any of the defendants. Looking at the language in OCGA § 51-12-33, the trial court noted that apportionment of damages according to percentage of fault was mandatory when an action was brought against more than one person, and that only OCGA § 51-12-33 authorized the apportionment of fault to non-parties. In comparing the two statutes, the trial court concluded that the statutes were unconstitutionally vague and deprived Georgia’s citizens of due process. GFI filed the instant appeal.

While GFI’s appeal was pending, this Court decided Couch v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 291 Ga. 359, 361 729 SE2d 378 2012. In Couch, we concluded that

GFI Mgmt. Servs. Inc. v. Medina

A jury is allowed to apportion damages among a property owner and a criminal assailant, and jury charges or a special verdict form requiring such apportionment does not violate a plaintiff's constitutional rights to due process or equal protection.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report