In this civil action to recover for injuries suffered when a transit patron was attacked in a transit authority parking deck, defendant Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority MARTA appeals a jury verdict of $1.7 million awarded to plaintiff Jane Doe,1 arguing that the trial court erred in striking MARTA’s answer as a sanction for its intentional false response to a critical discovery request. We hold that for purposes of OCGA § 9-11-37 d sanctions, a defendant’s intentional false response to a discovery request equates to a total failure to respond and therefore authorizes a trial court in its discretion to strike the defendant’s answer. However, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend its judgment to include prejudgment interest after the notice of appeal was filed. Doe’s cross-appeal of the trial court’s order denying her attorney fees fails, as the trial court did not abuse its discretion under OCGA § 9-15-14 b. Accordingly, in MARTA’s appeal Case No. A08A1075, we affirm the $1.7 million judgment but vacate the later amendment of that judgment which added pre-judgment interest. In Doe’s cross-appeal Case No. A08A1228, we affirm the denial of her motion for attorney fees. The undisputed facts show that around 12:35 a.m. on the morning of June 25, 2002, a man assaulted and abducted Doe in a MARTA parking deck as she was approaching her car after having ridden a MARTA train. Despite her struggles, including her honking the car horn and screaming, he was able to force her into the trunk of her car and to take her car keys; he then drove the car down the deck and through the parking deck exit, while Doe continued to scream and kick in the trunk. No one stopped the car or alerted police. Driving her to a remote area, he raped her. He forced her back into the trunk and terrorized her over the next several hours coercing her to reveal PIN information so he could obtain cash from her accounts using her bank and credit cards, until he removed her from the trunk and, after duct taping her, locked her in an abandoned house. After he left, she managed to escape and contacted police from a nearby convenience store. Police soon found the man in her car with her bank and credit cards, which led to his arrest and subsequent conviction for rape and other charges.
In March 2003, Doe sued MARTA for premises liability arising from negligent security at the parking deck. In her complaint, she alleged that because MARTA negligently provided no security personnel at the deck at the relevant times nor reasonable security measures such as security cameras, fencing, call boxes, mirrors, and more lighting, the abduction and rape were not deterred nor stopped. At the jury trial in January 2007, MARTA moved for a directed verdict following the close of Doe’s evidence, which motion the court denied.
