SECOND DI VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, BOGGS and RI CKM A N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

Jul y 5, 2016



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 6 A0 34 4 . BROW

N v . TUCKER.

A1 6 A0 34 5 . TUCKER v

. BROW N.

B A R N E S , Pres i d i n g J ud g e.

Ti s h a Tu ck er was a p as s en g er i n a p i ck up t ru ck d ri v en b y T am m y Bro wn wh en

Bro w n s t ru ck a t ract o r-t rai l er ri g p ark ed b y t h e ro ad

. T u ck er s u ed Bro wn fo r h er

res u l ti n g i n

ju ri es, a nd B r o w n ide nti fi ed th e t ract o r-t rai l er d ri v er as a n on -p art y ag ai n s t

wh o m t h e j u ry s h o u l d ap po rt i on fau l t. Aft er t ri al

, t he ju ry ret u rn ed a v e r d i ct o f $ 2

m i l l io n

, ap p o rt i o n i ng 4 0 percen t fau l t to t h e t ract or-t rai l er d ri v e r a n d 6 0 p ercen t to

Bro w n

. T h e t ri al co u rt s ub s eq u en t l y award ed T u ck er an a d d i t i o nal $ 5 3 3 ,1 8 0 in

at t o rn ey fees an d ex p en s es o f l i t i g at i o n u n d er t h e offer o f s et tl em en t s t at u t e, OCGA

§ 9 -1 1-6 8 (d ).

Bo t h p art i es hav e ap p eal ed

. Bro wn en u m erat es s e v e n erro rs rel at ed to

ev i d en t i ary i s s u es

, ju ry ch arg es

, an d t h e co u rt ’ s res p o n s e t o a ju ry q u es t i o n reg ard i n g

ap p ort i o n m en t. Tu ck er en u m erat es t h ree erro rs

, al l o f wh ich rel at e t o her co n t en t i o nt h at t h e tri al co urt s ho u l d hav e g ran t ed h er m o t i o n fo r a d i rect ed v erd i c t o f 1 0 0

p ercen t l i ab i l i t y

ag ai n s t Bro wn . Fo r t h e reas on s t h at fo l l ow, we affi rm

.

Th e ev i d en ce b efo re t h e ju ry i n cl u d ed t h e fo l l o w i n g : Pas s en g er Tu ck er cal l ed

Dri v er Bro wn o n cro ss -ex am i n at i o n

, an d Bro wn ad m it t ed th at

, b efo re t h e co l l i s i o n,

t h e s u n h ad b een i n h er ey es s o b ad l y t h at s h e co ul d n o t s ee i n fro nt o f h er; t h at s h e

d i d n o t p ut h er v is o r do wn

, s h i el d h er ey es wi t h her han d

, o r do n s u n g las s es

, an d t h at

s h e co n t i n u ed d r i v i n g fo r s o m e d is t an ce w i t ho u t b ei n g ab le t o s ee wh ere s h e was

g o i n g

. S h e f

u r t h er ad m i t ted t h at s h e fi rs t s aw t h e t ract o r-t rai l er aft er s h e h i t i t

, an d

t h at i f s h e h ad s een i t , s h e co ul d h av e av o id ed i t . Th e ju ry t h en m ad e a s i t e v i s i t

.

Nex t

, an ey ewi t n es s t o t h e co l l i s i o n t es ti fi ed t hat h e s aw t h e t ract o r-t rai l er

p u l l i ng ou t o f a n ei g h b or’ s d r i v eway an d heard i t sp u tt eri n g “ l i k e s o m et h i n g was

wro ng wi t h t h e m o t o r.” H e h eard t h e t ract o r cu t off, s aw w h ere t h e ri g w as p ark ed

,

l o o k ed d o wn

, an d l o o k ed u p t o s ee Bro wn ’ s p i ck up t ru ck h i t t h e b a c k e n d o f t h e

fl at b ed t rai l er. Acco rd i n g t o t h e wi t n es s

, t h e back t i re was o n t h e fo g l i ne an d t h e b ack

en d o f t h e t rai l er was s t i ck in g ab o u t a fo o t an d a h al f i n to t h e ro ad

. Th e t ract o r wo u ld

n o t s t art

, an d t h e wi t n es s tes t i fi ed th at

, al t h o u gh a d ri ver pay in g at t en t i o n co u l d h av e

av o id ed h i t t i n g t h e trai ler as i t s at

, h e ret ri ev ed h i s b u l l d o zer an d p u s h ed t h e b ack en d

2o f t h e t rai l er co m pl et el y o u t of t h e ro ad an y w ay becau s e t he wreck ed pi c k u p t ru ck

creat ed a d i s t ract i o n

.

A s eco n d wi t n es s t es t i fi ed t h at s h e h eard t h e t ract o r’ s en g in e m ak i n g “ s p i t t er

s p at t er” n o i s es as i t d ro v e u p t he d ri v eway acro s s t h e s t reet an d pu l l ed o n to t h e s i d e

o f t he ro ad

. Th e dri ver g o t o u t

, t h e wi t n es s t urn ed away

, an d o ne t o fi v e m i n u t es l at er

s h e h eard a “ b i g bo o m ” wh en Bro wn ’ s p i ck up h i t t h e t rai l er. Sh e t es t i fi ed t h at t h e

t rai l er h ad b een p ro t ru d in g o nl y a few i n ch es i n t o t h e ro ad b efo re i t was m o v ed

.

A t h i rd wi t n es s tes ti fi ed t h at h e h eard t he co l l i s i o n a n d ran ou t t o as s i s t t h e

p i ck u p tru ck o ccu pan t s an d as s es s t h e s cen e. Bro wn h ad s t ep p ed o ut of t h e t ru ck b ut

h er t w o p as s en g ers were s t i l l i n s i d e, an d aft er t h e w i t nes s wr e n ch ed t he p as s en g er

d o o r o p e n

, T u c k e r ’ s arm fel l a l i t t l e an d “ b l o od p ou red o u t o f t he jack et ” s h e was

weari n g

. Th e wi t n es s wrap p ed h i s s h i r t a r o u n d h er arm an d wai ted w i t h b o th

p as s en g ers u n t i l t h e am

bu l an ce cam e. H e t es t i fi ed th a t a s m al l s ect i o n o f t h e t rai l er

was a few i n ch es o v er t h e fo g l i n e i n t o t h e ro ad wh en Bro wn h i t i t

.

Tu ck er t es t i fi ed t h at Bro wn h ad b een d ri v in g T u c k e r b ack t o h er m o t h er’ s

h o u s e wi t h Bro wn ’ s d au g ht er-i n -l aw, Bro o k e Ro bers o n

, s i t t i n g bet ween Bro wn an d

Tu ck er. Tu ck er n o t i ced t h e p ark ed t ract o r-t rai l er ah ead o n th e s id e o f t h e ro ad ah ead

o f t h em b u t was l o o k i n g o u t t h e wi n d ow d ay d ream i n g wh en Bro w n h i t i t

. Th e EM T

3wh o t reat ed Tu ck er at t he s cen e an d t h e su rg eo n wh o o perat ed on h er l acerat ed fi n g er,

b ro k en arm , an d d i s l ocat ed el b o w b o t h t es t i fi ed ab o u t Tu ck er’ s i n ju ri es

.

Aft er T u ck er res ted h er cas e, t h e d efen s e cal led t h ree d ep ut y s h eri ffs wh o h ad

r e s p o nd ed t o th e s cen e, Ro b ers o n, an d t h e s t at e t ro o p er wh o was i n ch arg e o f

i n v es t i g at i n g t h e co l l i s io n

. Th e tro o p er t es ti fi ed ab o u t h i s trai n i ng an d ex p eri en ce an d

h i s co n v ers at i o n s wi t h Bro wn an d Lee Pat t ers o n

, wh o h ad i d en ti fi ed h im sel f as t h e

d ri v er o f t h e t ract or-t rai l er ri g

, wh i ch was o wn ed b y s o m eo n e el s e. Aft er d es cri b i n g

h i s p hy s ical i n v es t i gat i o n

, t h e t ro o p er co n cl u d ed t hat i n h i s o p i ni o n t he t ract o r-t rai l er

h ad n o t b een p ark ed co m p l et el y o ff t h e ro ad way wh en Bro wn h i t i t an d t h at Bro wn

h ad n o t b een s peed i n g. Bro w n was n o t cal l ed t o t es t i fy o n d irect

.

Ca s e Nu m b er

A1 6 A0 3 44

1

. Bro wn arg u es t h at t h e tri al co u rt erred i n g ran t i n g Tu ck er’ s m o t i o n in l i m i n e

t o ex cl u de t h e s t at e t ro o p er’ s o p i n i o n t es t i m o ny th at t h e cau s e o f th e co l l i s i o n was t h e

t ract o r- t rai l er’ s p ro t ru s i o n i n to t h e ro ad way

, rat h er t h an Bro wn ’ s ab i l i t y t o s ee wh ere

s h e was g o i n g

. Aft er t h e tro op er t es t i fi ed ab o u t h i s i nv es t ig at i o n

, t h e ju ry was

ex cu sed an d Bro w n m a d e a p r o f f er o f t h e t ro op er’ s t es t i m o n y

. Bro wn as k ed t h e

t ro o p er, “ Co m

b in in g al l t h e fact o rs y o u t al k ed ab o u t s o far,

... were y o u ab l e t o reach

4a co n cl u si o n i n y o u r m i n d as t o wh at t h e cau s e o f t h e acci d en t was ? ” T he t ro o p er

an s wered y es , an d t h is ex ch an g e fo ll o wed :

QUESTION: Bas ed o n y o u r ex p eri en ce an d t rai n in g

, wh at o p i n i o n

, i f

an y , d o y o u h av e as t o wh at t h e cau s e o f t hi s acci d en t was ?

ANSW ER: Ok ay

. Th e p ark ed tract o r-t rai l er b e i n g part i al ly in th e

ro ad w ay

.

QUESTION: W hy

i s t hat ?

ANSW ER: Th e ro ad way i s 2 0 feet w i d e. If y ou are n eg o t i at i n g a cu rv e

a n d yo u c o m e aro u n d a cu rv e an d y ou d o n ’ t s ee s om et h i n g t h at i s

p art i al ly i n t h e ro ad way

, y o u ’ re g o i ng t o h i t i t

. A nd t h at ’ s b as ical l y wh at

h ap p en ed i n t h i s acci den t h ere.

QUESTION: Di d t he s u n fi g u re i n t o t h at at al l?

ANSW ER: Th e s u n d i d fi g u re i n

. It ’ s s et ti n g i n t he w es t

, an d if y ou g o t

s u n l i g h t i n y o u r ey es wh i l e y o u ’ re n eg o t i at i n g a cu rv e, i t co u l d p o s s ib l y

h ap p en

.

Tu ck er’ s o b

ject io n t o t hi s p ro ffered t es t i m o n y was t hat “ o p i n i o n s s u ch as [‘ ] i f

y o u d o n ’ t s ee s o m et h in g i n t h e r o a d way

, y ou ’ re g o i n g to h i t i t [‘ ] are cert ai n l y

s o m et h in g t h at ’ s w i t hi n t h e [k en ] o f t he ju ry

, ” an d t h at “ i t was n o t b ey o n d t h e ju ry ’ s

ab i l i t y t o wei g h t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e t ru ck v ers u s th e effect o f t h e s u n .” Th e t ri al co u rt

ag reed

. It reas on ed t h at t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed d u ri n g t he t ri al cl earl y pres en t ed t h e

q u es ti o n o f h o w m

u c h t h e t ract o r-t rai l er i n th e ro ad way an d h o w m u ch t h e s u n in

Bro w n ’ s ey es cau s ed o r co n t ri b u t ed t o t h e co l li s io n

. Su s t ai n i n g Tu ck er’ s o b ject i o n,

5t h e co u rt fo u n d t h at t h e l as t q ues t i o n s q uo t ed ab o ve cl earl y w en t t o t h e u l t i m at e i s s u e

i n t he cas e, wh i ch was as eas il y d et erm i ned b y

t h e ju ry as b y t h e t ro o p er.

W e rev i ew a tri al co u rt ’ s ev i d en t i ary det erm in at io n s o n l y f o r ab u s e o f

d i s cret i o n

. W

h it l o ck v. Mo o r e

, 3 1 2 G a. A p p

. 7 77

, 7 7 9 (1 ) (7 2 0 S E2 d 1 9 4 ) (2 0 1 1 ).

Bro w n arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ab u s ed t h at d i s cret i o n by s us t ai n i n g Tu ck er’ s

o b ject i on t o t h e p ro ffered o p i n i o n t es ti m o n y

, wh ich s h e arg u es w as ad m i s s i b l e

b ecau s e i t was b as ed o n b ot h t h e t ro o p er’ s ex am i n at io n o f p h ys i c a l ev i d en ce at t h e

s cen e an d o n wi tn es s i nt erv i ews

.

Gen eral ly

, an o ffi cer wi t h i n v es t i g at i v e t rai n i n g an d ex p eri en ce m ay rel at e h i s

o p i n i o n ab o u t t h e ev en t s t h at l ed t o a v eh i cu l ar co l li s io n

, b as ed o n h i s o b s erv at i o n s

,

an d m a y e ven t es t i fy ab ou t an u l t i m at e i s s u e i f hi s co n cl u s i on ex ceed s t h e av erag e

ju ro r’ s k en an d i s n ot a d et erm i n at i o n o f fau l t

. Fo r t n er v. To wn of Reg i s t er

, 2 8 9 Ga.

Ap p . 5 4 3 , 5 4 5 -5 4 6 (1 ) (6 5 7 SE2 d 6 2 0 ) (2 0 08 ).

Th e t ro op er in th is cas e d i d t es t i fy t h at i n h i s o p i n i o n

, b as e d o n h i s

i n v es t i g at i o n

, t h e t rai l er t h at Bro wn s t ru ck was p rot ru d i ng s o m e d i s t an ce in t o t h e ro ad

an d t h e s u n w as i n Bro wn ’ s ey es

. Hi s co n c l u s i o n ab ou t t h es e fact o rs was a p ro p er

m at t er fo r h i s t es t i m o n y

, as was t h e op i n io n o f t h e i nv es t ig at in g offi cer i n Fo r t n er

t h at t h e d eced en t ’ s fai l u re t o s t o p at a s t o p s i g n wa s “ a co nt ri bu t i ng fact o r o f t h e

6acci den t .” 2 8 9 Ga

. A p p

. at 5 4 5 (1 ). Bu t t h e ju ry i n t h i s cas e d id no t req u i re an

ex p ert ’ s o p i n i on reg ard i n g w h et h er t h e t r act o r-t rai l er’ s l o cat i o n was “ t h e” u l t i m at e

cau s e o f t h e co l li s i o n

.

Al t h ou g h an ex p eri en ced p o l i ce offi cer can b e qu al i fi ed as an ex p ert t o

g i v e o p i ni o n t es ti m on y

ab o u t t h e cau s e o f a t raffi c acci d en t

, i t rem ai n s

s et t l ed l aw i n Geo rg i a t h at ex pert o p in i on t es ti m o n y i s u n n eces s ary an d

i m p ro p er i f a ju ry wo u l d b e ab l e t o as cert ai n t h e cau s e o f t h e acci d en t o n

i t s o wn an d wi t h o u t an y s u ch t es t i m o n y

.

(Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .) W

h it l o ck, 3 1 2 Ga. Ap p

. at 7 7 9 -7 8 0 (1 ).

Bro wn arg u es t h at th e offi cer’ s tes t i m on y i n t h is cas e was ad m i s s i b le b ecau s e

i t was b as ed o n h i s p ers o n al i n v es t ig at i on i n ad d i t i o n t o wi t n es s s t at em en ts

, u n l i k e

t h e p ro perl y ex cl u d ed ev i den c e i n Wh i t l o ck

, 3 1 2 Ga. Ap p. at 7 7 8 -7 8 0 (1 ), 1 an d t h e

erro neo u s l y ad m i t t ed ev i d en ce i n Pu r cel l v. Kel l ey

, 2 8 6 Ga. Ap p. 11 7

, 1 1 8 (1 ) (6 4 8

SE2 d 4 5 4 ) (2 0 0 7 ). 2 Th is arg u m en t m i s s es t h e p o i n t, wh i ch i s t h at i n t h i s cas e, wh et h er

1 In W h i t l o ck

, t h e i nv es t i g at i n g o ffi cer s i m p l y rep eat ed as fact t he s t at em en t s o f

wi t n es s es d es cri b i n g t h e ev en t s t h at l ed to t h e co l l i s i o n

, rat h er t h an i nv es t ig at i n g t h e

p h y s i cal ev i d en ce an d d rawi n g co n cl u si o n s t h at req u i red t h e ap p l i cat i o n of ex p ert i s e.

3 1 2 Ga. Ap p . at 7 79 (1 ).

2 In P u r cel l

, t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n ad m i t t in g t h e o ffi cer’ s t es t i m o n y t h at t h e

d efen d an t ran a red l i g ht

, b ecau s e t h at co n cl u s i o n was b as ed so l el y on wi t n es s

t es t i m o ny an d t h e ju ry co u l d d et erm i n e fo r i t s el f wh et her t h e wi t n es s es w ere b ei n g

t ru t h fu l . 2 8 6 Ga. Ap p . at 1 1 8 (1 ).

7t h e co ll i s i o n was cau s ed by t h e p l acem en t o f t h e p ark ed t ract o r-t rai l er

, b y B r o wn

co n ti n u i n g t o d ri v e wh en sh e co u l d n o t s ee wh ere s h e was g o i n g

, o r b y a co m b i n at i o n

o f t h es e fact o rs

, was n o t an i ss u e t h at a l ay p ers o n need ed e x p e r t o p i n i o n to d eci de.

Th u s, t h e t ri al co u rt act ed wi th in i t s d i s cret i o n i n ex cl u d in g t h e p ro ffered t es t i m o n y

.

In co n t ras t

, t h e o ffi cer’ s o p i ni o n ab o u t wh ere t h e t ract o r-t rai l er w as lo cat ed befo re t h e

co l l i s i o n an d t h e d eg ree t o wh i ch t h e s u n co u l d h av e b een i n Bro wn ’ s ey es was

p ro p erl y ad m i t t e d by t h e t ri al co u rt

, b ecau s e t h o s e co n cl u s i o n s were b as ed o n t h e

o f f i c e r ’s ap p l i cat i o n o f h i s ex p ert k n o wl ed g e t o t h e p h y s i cal ev i den ce at t h e s cen e.

See Ken n eb eck v. G l o ver

, 2 9 4 Ga. Ap p. 82 2

, 8 2 3 -8 2 5 (1 ) (6 70 SE2 d 4 5 9 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (n o

e r r o r i n t ri al co u rt al l owi n g i n v es t i g at i n g o ffi cer t o tes t ify

, i n res po n s e t o a

h y p o t h et i cal , t h at i f d efen d an t h ad b een d ri v i n g 2 0 m i les o v er t h e s p eed l i m i t wh en

h e h i t p l ai n t i ff, h e h ad b een d ri v i n g t o o fas t fo r co n d i t i o n s ).

2

. Bro wn co n t en d s t h at t he tri al co u rt erred i n ex cl u di ng ev i den ce t h at Tu ck er

h ad h i red an ex p ert b ut ch o s e n o t to cal l hi m

, as s ert i ng t h at t he ju ry co u l d h av e

reas on a b l y i n ferred fro m Tu ck er’ s fai l u re t o cal l t he ex p ert t h at t h e ex p ert ’ s rep o rt

m u st h av e b een u n fav o rab l e t o Tu ck er. Ag ai n, we rev i ew t h i s d eci si on fo r ab u s e o f

d i s cret i o n

. W

h it lo ck, 3 1 2 Ga. Ap p . at 7 7 9 (1 ).

8Tu ck e r f o r m al l y wi t h drew h er d es i gn at i o n o f an ex p ert w i t nes s an d fi l ed a

m o ti o n i n l i m i n e t o ex cl u d e ev i d en ce t h at s h e h ad p rev i o u s l y h i red h i m or had fai l ed

t o cal l h im t o tes ti fy

. Th e t ri al c o u r t i n i t i al ly den i ed t h e m o t i on

, b u t reco n s i d ered

b efo re Bro wn ’ s ex p ert acci d en t reco n st ru ct io n i s t t estif ie d. Bro wn s o u g h t t o in t ro d uce

ev i d en ce t hro u g h h er ex p ert t h at Tu ck er h ad hi red a d i fferen t ex p ert

, an d t h en “ l et

[t he ju ro rs ] d raw wh at ev er i n feren ces t h ey wan t t o d raw.” Aft er fu rt h er co n s id erat i o n,

t h e t ri al co urt ru l ed t h at t h e i ss u e o f wh o h i red an ex pert had n o t h i ng t o d o wi t h t h e

i s su e b efo re t h e ju ry

, wh i ch was t o det erm i n e th e p ro xi m at e cau s e o r cau s es o f t h e

acci den t

. Bro wn t hen s tat ed h er u n d ers t an d i n g t h at t he co u rt w as ru l i n g s h e “ was n ot

al l o wed t o m en t i o n ” Tu ck er’ s fo rm er ex p ert

, an d th e co u rt cl ari fi ed t h at Bro wn co u ld

n o t m en t i o n Tu ck er’ s “ h i ri n g o f an earl ier ex pert t h at [s h e] d i d n ot cal l .” Du ri n g t h e

t es t i m o n y o f Bro wn ’ s acci d en t reco ns t ru ct i o n ex p ert

, Bro wn d i d n o t as k t h e ex p ert

t o i d e n t i fy al l t h e m at eri al h e h ad rel i ed on t o fo rm h i s op i n i o n s, al t h o u g h h e d id

t es t i fy o u t s id e t h e ju ry ’ s pres en ce t h at he h ad rel i ed o n m at eri al fro m Tu ck er’ s fo rm er

ex p ert t o fo rm

h is o wn o p in i o n

.

Bro wn arg u es t h at t h e t ri a l c o u rt ab u s ed i ts di s cret io n b y no t al l o w i ng h er to

i n t ro du ce ev i d en ce t h at Tu ck er h ad hi red an ex pert s h e d i d n ot cal l as a wi t n es s

. Sh e

co n ten d s t h at u nd er t h e au t h o ri t y o f Bl i g e v. S t a t e , 2 6 4 Ga. 1 6 6

, 1 6 8 (2 ) (4 4 1 SE2 d

97 5 2 ) (1 9 9 4 ) ( Bl ig e 4 ) an d Bl i ge v. S t a t e

, 2 6 3 Ga. 2 44

, 2 4 5 (2 ) (4 3 0 SE2 d 7 6 1) (1 9 9 3 ),

( B l i ge 2 ) 3 s he s h o u l d hav e b een al l o wed t o i n t ro du ce fo un d at io n ev i den ce t h at Tu ck er

h ad h ired an ex p ert b u t d i d n ot cal l h i m , an d t o arg u e t h e n eg at i v e in feren ce ari s i n g

fro m Tu ck er’ s fai lu re t o cal l t h at ex p ert

. Th es e cas es rel ied o n S a b el v. S t a t e

, 2 4 8 Ga.

1 0

, 1 8 ( 6 ) (2 8 2 SE2 d 6 1 ) (1 9 8 1 ), i n w h i ch t h e Su p rem e Co u rt i n t erp ret ed t h e

reci pro cal cri m i n al d i s co v ery s t at u t e, fo rm er O CGA § 1 7 -7 -2 1 1 (b ), as req ui ri n g an

ex p ert h i red b y a cri m in al d efen d an t t o red u ce h i s o p in i o ns t o a wri t t en rep o rt an d

g i v e i t t o t h e St at e, ev en i f t h e ex pert ’ s co n cl u s i o n s w ere u n fav o rab l e an d t h e

d efen d an t el ect ed no t t o cal l h i m

. T h at po rt i o n of Sa b el was o v erru l ed t hree y ears

l at er, h o wev er, wh en t h e Geo rg i a Su prem e Co u rt n o t e d t h at “ t h e di sco v ery ri g h t s

g ran t ed t o t h e [S] t at e u n d er S a b el [were] no t reci p r o c al

, b u t [were]

, i n fact

, g reat er

t h an t h e s t at u t o ry

d i s co v ery ri g h t s g ran ted t o t h e d efen d an t ,” b ecau s e t h e St at e was

n o t req u i red t o m ak e i t s ex p ert s p u t t h ei r o p in i on s i nt o rep o rt s an d g i v e t h em t o t h e

d efen d an t

. Ro wer v. S t a t e

, 2 6 4 Ga. 3 2 3

, 3 2 5 (5 ) (4 4 3 SE2 d 8 3 9 ) (1 9 9 4 ). Ci t i n g d u e

p ro ces s co n cern s

, t h e Su prem e Co u rt i n st ead co ncl u d ed t h at “ wi th reg ard t o s ci en t i fi c

3 M r. Bl i ge ap p eal ed two s ep arat e co nv i ct i o ns fo r s i m i l ar cri m es

, b o t h o f wh i ch

were h eard b y

b o th ap p el l at e co u rt s , fo r a t o t al o f fo u r ap p el l at e o pi n i o n s

.

10rep o rt s

, t h e [S] t at e i s en t i t led t o o n l y th o se d i s co v ery ri g ht s s p eci fi cal l y g ran t ed t o t h e

d efen d an t b y

OCGA § 1 7 -7 -2 1 1 .” Id

.

Th i s co u rt h as a l o n g l in e o f co n d em n at i o n cas es ad dres s i n g w h e t h er a p art y

m ay p l ace t h e o p i n i o ns o f an o p p o s i n g p art y ’ s fo rm er ex p ert befo re t h e ju ry

. W e h av e

h el d th at s u ch an ex p ert i s s u b ject t o s ub p o en a reg ard l es s o f wh o in i ti al ly h i red h i m

,

b u t t h at al l q u es t i o n s rel at i n g t o t h e ex pert ’ s p rev i o u s em p l o y m en t b y

t h e o p p o s i n g

p art y w ere i rrel ev an t an d i n ad m i s s i b l e. Lo g an v. Ch a t h a m Co un t y

, 1 1 3 Ga. Ap

. 4 9 1,

4 9 2 -4 9 3 (1 ), (2 ) (1 4 8 SE2 d 4 7 1 ) (1 9 6 6 ).

Th e Su p rem e Co u rt i n Bl i g e 4 h el d t hat

, g en eral ly

, t h e fact t h at an ex p ert

wi t n es s h ad b een ori g i n al l y em p l o y ed b y t h e o p p o si n g part y was n ot p ert in en t t o t h e

i s su es i n th e cas e. 2 64 Ga. at 1 6 7 (2 ). Th e St at e fu rt h er arg u ed t h at t h e i d en ti t y o f t h e

ex p ert ’ s ori g i n al em

p l o y er was rel ev an t t o th e wi t n es s ’ s i n t eres t

, ci t i n g fo rm er OCGA

§ 2 4 -9 -6 8

, w h i ch p ro v id ed th at “ [t ] h e s t at e o f a wi tn es s ’ s feel i n g s t o ward s t h e p art i es

an d h i s rel at io n s h i p t o t h em m ay al way s b e p ro v ed fo r t h e co n s i d erat i o n o f t h e ju ry

, ” 4

b u t t he co urt res p o n d ed th at t he s t at u t e co u l d n o t b e co n s id ered i n a v acu u m

. Id

.

Ev i d en ce rel at i n g t o a w i tn es s ’ s cred i bi l i t y i s o n l y rel ev an t t o at t ack or reh ab i l i t at e

4 Th e cu rren t cas e was tri ed aft er t h e effect i v e d a t e o f t h e rev i s ed Co d e o f

Ev i d en ce.

11t h e wi t n es s ’ s cred i b i li t y

, an d i n Bl i g e 4

, t h e St at e h ad cal l ed th e ex p ert t o tes t i fy fo r

t h e St at e. Id

. Th e St at e o b v io u s l y h ad n o i nt eres t i n i m p each i n g i ts o w n wi t n es s an d

t h e d efen d an t h ad n o t at t ack ed t h e wi t n es s ’ s cred i b i l i t y

, an d t h erefo re t h e wi t n es s ’ s

p ri o r em p l o y m en t b y

t h e d efen d an t was i n ad m i s s i bl e.

Fi n al l y

, i n Bl ig e 4

, t h e St at e arg u ed t hat t h e Lo g a n ru l e, t h at a p art y can n o t as k

h i s o w n wi t n es s ab o ut h av i n g b een p rev i o u s l y em p l o y ed b y t h e o p p o s i n g p art y

, was

i n co n s i s t en t wi t h S

a b el ’ s h o l d i n g t h at

[i ] f t h e d efen d an t d oes n o t cal l t h e ex pert as a wi t nes s , t h e [S] tat e m ay

cal l t h e d efen d an t ’ s

. . . [wi t n es s ] wi th o ut ad d i n g h is o r h er n am e t o th e

l i st o f wi t nes ses

, o r m ay arg u e to t h e ju ry t h at t he d efen d an t wo u ld h av e

cal l ed t he ex p e r t h a d t h e res u l t o f t h e t es t i n g b een fav o rab le t o th e

d efen d an t

.

Bl i g e 4

, 2 6 4 G a

. a t 16 8 (2 ), ci t i n g S ab el

, 2 4 8 Ga. at 1 8 (6 ). Th e co u rt i n Bl i g e 4

co n cl u d ed t h at t h es e t wo h o l d i n g were n o t i n co ns i s t en t

, b ecau s e u n d er S a b e l

, t h e

St at e was req u i red t o el ect bet ween cal l i n g t he wi t n es s or arg u in g t h e i n feren ce

ari s in g fro m t h e d efen d an t ’ s fai l u re t o ca l l t he w i t nes s

, b u t n o t bo t h

, as t h e St at e

wan ted t o d o i n t hat cas e. 2 6 4 Ga. at 1 6 8 (2 ).

In Ro wer

, d eci ded l es s t h an t wo m on t h s aft er Bl i g e 4

, aft er o v erru l i n g S

a b el ’ s

r e q u i r e m e n t th at a cri m i n al d efen d an t was req u ired t o m ak e h i s ex p ert wi t n es s e s

12red u ce t h ei r op in i o n s to wri t i n g an d s h are t h at wi th t h e St at e, t he Su p rem e Co u rt h el d,

s i m p l y

, “ W i t h reg ard t o t h e [S] t at e’ s ri gh t t o cal l [t h e d efen d an t ’ s ] ex p ert wi t n es s es

as i t s own

, o r t o arg u e t h e i n feren ce ari s i n g fro m [t h e d efen d an t’ s] fai l u re t o cal l h i s

o wn ex p ert s

, s ee Bl i

g e v. S t a t e

, 2 6 4 Ga. 1 66 (4 4 1 SE2 d 75 2 ) (1 9 9 4 ).” Ro wer

, 2 6 4 Ga.

at 3 2 5 (5 ).

Acco rd i ng to B l i

g e 4

, 2 6 4 Ga. at 1 6 8 (2 ) an d Ro wer

, 2 6 4 G a

. at 3 2 5 (5 ), t h e

St at e m ay arg u e i n c l o s i n g t h at t h e ju ry m ay d raw a n eg at i v e in feren ce fro m a

cri m i n al d efen d an t ’s f

a i l u r e t o cal l as a w i t nes s an ex p ert wh o m t h e d efen d an t

p rev i o u s l y h i red

. W e h av e fo un d n o fu rt h er di s cu ss i on o f t h e i s su e i n an y cas es fro m

t h e Geo rg i a Su p rem e C o u r t

, cri m i n al o r ci v i l. Bu t see ABM Rea l t y Co

. v. Bd

. of

Reg en t s o f t h e Un i v. S

ys . o f Ga

. , 2 96 Ga. Ap p . 6 58 , 6 6 2 (2 ) (6 7 5 SE2 d 5 4 9 ) (2 0 0 9 )

(n o erro r i n g ran t i n g m o t i o n i n l i m i n e t o ex cl u d e p ro p ert y ap p rai s al “ w i t h referen ce

t o t h e fact t h at t h e ap p rai s al h ad b een m ad e o n b eh al f o f t h e m o vi n g p art y

... b ecau s e

a p art y i s n ot b ou n d b y t h e reject ed o p i n i o n s o f i t s ex p ert wi t n es ses .”) See al s o H. D.

McCo n di ch i e Pr o

p er t ies v. Ga

. Dep t. o

f Tr a n s p

. , 2 8 0 Ga. A p p

. 1 9 7

, 1 9 8 ( 1 ) ( 6 3 3

SE2 d 5 5 8 ) (2 0 06 ) (“ Th e i s s u e o f wh o hi red a part i cu lar ex p ert h ad n o t h i n g to d o wi th

t h e q u e s ti o n s bei n g t ri ed

, an d t h e t ri al co u rt p ro p erl y ex cl u ded t hi s ev i d en ce at

t ri al .”); Va u g h n v. Pr o t ect i ve In s

. C o

. , 2 4 3 Ga. A p p

. 7 9

, 84 -8 5 (4 ) (5 3 2 SE2 d 1 5 9 )

13(2 0 0 0) (wh et h er o p p o s i n g co u n s e l h ad h ired ex p ert i n o t h er cas es was no t p ro p er

reh ab i l i t at i o n ev id en ce du ri n g v o i r d ire o n ex p ert ’ s q u al i fi cat i on s ); Jo n es v.

S ca rb o r o u g h

, 1 9 4 Ga. Ap p

. 4 6 8

, 4 7 0 -4 7 1 (3 ) (3 90 SE2 d 6 7 4) (1 9 9 0 ) (o p p o s i n g

p art y ’ s fo rm er ex p ert co u l d h av e b een d ep o s ed an d q u es t i o n ed a t t ri al ab o u t h i s

o b s erv at i o n s o f th at p art y

, al t h ou g h h is o ri g i n al em p l o y m en t “ was n ot p ert i n en t an d

co u ld n o t h av e b een b ro u gh t o ut ”).

Pret erm it t i n g wh et her th e t ri al co u rt erred i n n o t p erm i t t i n g Bro wn t o arg u e t h at

Tu ck er h ad h i red a part i cu l ar ex p ert t hat sh e d i d n o t cal l t o t es t i fy o n h er b eh al f, we

fi nd no rev ers i b l e erro r. Bro wn ’ s acci den t reco n s tru ct i on ex p ert tes t i fi ed t h at

, i n h i s

o p i n i o n

, t h e tract o r-t rai l er h ad b een p ro t ru di n g ab o u t t wo feet i n t o t h e ro ad

, an d t h at

Bro w n h ad n ot co n t i n u ed d ri v i n g w h i l e s un -b l i n d fo r as l o n g as Tu ck er arg u ed s h e

h ad

. Fu rt h er, Bro w n arg u ed i n cl o s i n g t hat Tu ck er h ad fai led t o reb ut t h e op i n i on s

p res en t ed b y

Bro wn ’ s acci d en t reco n s t ru ct i o n i s t as fo ll o ws :

W e cal l ed an ex p ert

. Th ey co u l d h av e cal led an ex p ert

. Th ey di d n ’ t n o t

[ s i c ] cal l an ex p ert i n t h i s cas e t o co m e i n an d s ay wh ere t h o s e s k i d

m ark s s t art ed

, wh ere t h e i m p act was

. Th e o n ly ex p ert y o u’ v e h eard fro m

fro m t h i s s i d e i s [Tu ck er’ s l awy er]

. An d I s ug g es t t o y ou h e’ s no t an

14ex p ert

. He’ s a l awy er. Yo u o n ly h eard t h e s ci en ce a cco rd i n g t o

[Tu ck er’ s l awy er]

. 5

Th e ju ry en d ed u p ap p o rt i o n i n g a s ig n i fi can t p ercen t ag e o f d am ag es , 4 0 p ercen t , t o

t h e t ract o r-t rai l er dri ver, an d aft er rev iewi n g t h e ev i d en ce, we co n cl u de th at t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s deci s io n n o t t o al l o w Bro wn t o a r g u e a n eg at iv e i nferen ce ari s i n g fro m

Tu ck er’ s fai l u re t o cal l h er p rev i o u s l y h i red ex p ert i s n ot rev ers i b l e erro r.

Bro wn al so arg ues t hat h er e x p e r t “ s h o u ld hav e b een al l owed t o tru t h fu l l y

d i s cl os e t h e m at eri al s t h at h e rev i ewed i n fo rm i n g h i s o p i ni o ns ,” wh i ch i n cl u d ed t h e

d ep os i t i o n an d i n ves ti g at i v e m at eri al of Tu ck er’s e x p e rt

. Bu t t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n ot

ru l e t h at Br o w n was p recl u d ed fro m as k i n g h er ex pert ab ou t t h e ev i d en ce h e rel i ed

o n to fo rm

h i s o pi n i o n s ab o u t t h e cas e. Th e t ri al co u r t w a s v ery s peci fi c i n h o l d i n g

o n l y t h at Bro wn co ul d n o t as k h er o wn ex p ert ab o u t t h e fact t hat Tu ck er h ad h i red a

d i fferen t ex p ert

, an d

, a s T u c k e r n o t ed i n h er res p on s iv e b ri ef, Bro wn w ai v ed t h i s

arg u m en t b ecau s e s h e n ev er t ri ed t o i n t ro d u ce ev i den ce t h at her ex p ert h ad rel i ed o n

m at eri al s u p p l i ed b y Tu ck er’ s fo rm er ex p ert

.

5 Th i s arg u m en t d id n o t v i o l at e t he t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g o n T u c k er’ s m o t i o n in

l i m i ne. See F

o s key v. W

i l li a m Br o s

. Tr u c k i n g Co

. , 19 7 G a. Ap p

. 7 1 5, 7 17 (2 ) (3 9 9

SE2 d 4 8 4) (1 9 9 0).

153

. Bro wn as s ert s th at th e t ri al co u rt erred i n al lo wi n g T u ck er t o el i ci t ev i d en ce

fro m t h e s eco n d p as s en g er, Bro wn ’ s d au g h t er-i n -l aw Bro o k e Ro b ers o n , “ reg ard i n g

a p ers o n al i n

ju ry s et t l em en t,” p o i n t i n g o u t t h at ev i d en ce ab o ut l i ab i l i t y i n s uran ce i s

i n ad m is s i b le i n t o rt cas es

. OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 1 1 p ro h ib i t s t h e ad m i s s io n o f ev i d en ce t h at

s o m eo n e was o r w as n o t i n s u red ag ai n st li ab i l i t y i n a ci v i l dam ag es cas e no t i nv o l v i n g

a co m m o n carri er, u n l es s t h e ev i d en ce is o ffered fo r a rel ev an t p u rp o se an d t h e t ri al

co u rt “ fi n d s t h at t h e d an g er o f u n fai r p reju di ce i s su b st an t i al ly o u t wei gh ed b y t h e

p ro b at i v e v al u e o f t h e ev i d en ce.”

Here, t h e t ri al co u rt co n s i d ered t h e is s u e b efo re t ri al b eg an

. It h eard p o rt i on s

o f Ro bers o n ’ s d ep o s it i on

, i n cl u d i n g h er t es t i m o n y t hat s h e h ad recei v ed a l et t er fro m

Bro w n ’ s i n s u ran ce co m

pan y s ay i n g “ t h i s i s h o w m u ch m y m ed ical bi ll s [were]

, t h i s

i s h o w m u ch wen t t o it

, an d t h i s i s h o w m u ch I’ ll b e get t i n g

. An d s i n ce I h ad ju s t h ad

a b a b y th at fi v e h u n d red s o m et h i n g was p erfect .” Ro b ers o n al s o tes t ifi ed i n h er

d ep os i t i o n t h at s h e t h o u g h t Tu ck er h ad s u ed th e wro ng p art y an d t h at t h e t ru ck d ri v er

was res p on s ib le fo r t h e w reck

. Ro b ers o n ’ s t es ti m o ny reg ard in g h o w l o n g s h e was

b l i n ded b y t h e s u n b efo re t h e co l l i s i o n vari ed fro m “ a few m i n ut es ” to l es s t h a n 1 5

s eco n d s

, t o al m o s t i m

m ed i at el y (“ [I] t was l i k e, can ’ t s ee, t h en b o om

, s p in n i n g

. An d

t h en o h, l o o k t h ere’ s a t ru ck t h ere.”).

16Th e t ri al co urt fo u n d th at wh et h er Ro b ers on h ad recei v ed m o n ey fro m Bro wn

was rel ev an t t o h e r c r ed i b i l i t y

, b u t al s o fo u n d t h at i n ject i n g t h e i ss u e o f i n s u ran ce

wo u l d b e p reju d ici al t o Bro wn

. Befo re Ro b ers o n t o o k t he st an d

, t h e t ri al co u rt ag ai n

co n si d ered t h e i s su e an d fo u n d t h at t h e v al u e of al lo wi n g Tu ck e r t o as k l i m i t ed

q u es ti o n s ab o u t m o n ey s h e h ad recei v ed s u b st an t i al l y o ut wei g h ed t h e p r e j u d i ce o f

h av in g t h e ju ry

p o s si b l y as s u m e t h at Bro wn was i ns u red

.

Bro wn arg u es o n ap p eal th at t h e t ri al co u rt ab us ed i t s d i scret i o n i n d et erm i n i n g

t h at t h e p ro b at i ve v al u e of t he ev i d en ce s ub s tan t i al l y o u t wei g h ed t h e preju d i ce o f

al l o wi n g Tu ck er t o i n tro d u ce ev i d en ce o f i n s u ran ce.

No Geo rg i a cas es h av e y et ad d res s ed th e ap p l i cat i o n o f OCGA § 24 -4 -4 1 1

, b ut

t h e p ro p o s i t i o n t h at a tri al co u rt m u s t bal an ce t h e p reju d i ci al effect o f l i ab i l i t y

i n s u ran ce ev i d en ce wi th i t s p ro b at i v e v al u e is n o t n ew. “ Th e ru l e th at th e p l ai n t i ff b e

al l o wed t h e ri gh t o f a th oro ug h an d si ft i n g cro ss ex am i n at i o n m u s t b e b al an ced

ag ai n s t t h e ru l e th at i rrel ev an t m at t ers o f i n s u ran ce co v erag e s ho u l d b e ex cl u d ed fro m

ev i d en ce. In t h e i nt eres t o f ju st i ce, t h e m at t er o f i n s u ran ce w h i ch i s n o t a g erm an e

i s su e, s h o u l d be k ep t o u t .” S ou t h ea s t Tr a n s p o r t Co r p

. v. Ho g a n Li ves t ock Co

. , 1 3 3

Ga. Ap p

. 8 2 5

, 83 0 (3 ) (2 1 2 SE2 d 6 3 8 ) (1 9 7 5); s ee al s o Mo r r i s o n v. Ki ckl i g ht er

, 3 2 9

Ga. Ap p

. 6 3 0

, 6 3 4 (2 ) (d ) (7 6 5 SE2 d 7 7 4 ) (2 0 14 ) (p h y si cal p reced en t o n l y ). On t h e

17o t h er h an d

, a part y i s en t i t l ed t o ex p l o re an y i s s ues t h at m ay affect a n o p p o s i n g

wi t n es s ’ s cred i b i l it y o r s h o w bi as

. Pr es s wo o d v. W a l s h

, 2 7 1 Ga. Ap p

. 4 59

, 4 6 1 (3 )

(6 1 0 SE2 d 1 1 3 ) (2 00 5 ); A yer s v

. N i c h o l s

, 13 6 Ga. Ap p. 5 3 2 (1 ) (2 2 1 SE2 d 8 3 5 )

(1 9 7 5).

In t h i s cas e, t h e ju ry heard n o d irect ev i d en ce reg ard i n g Bro wn ’ s l i ab i l i t y

i n s u ran ce, o n l y t h at Ro b ers o n h ad recei v ed m o n ey t o set t l e an y cl ai m s sh e h ad ag ai n s t

Bro w n an d t h at th e t ru ck dri v er h ad n o t p ai d h er an y m on ey

. Th e t ri al co u rt al l o wed

Tu ck er t o as k Ro bers o n o nl y wh et h er s he h ad accep t ed m on ey t o rel eas e her cl ai m s

ag ai n s t Bro wn (s h e h ad ); wh et h er t h e m o n ey s h e recei ved h ad hel p ed h er tak e care

o f h er n ew b ab y (i t h ad ); an d wh et h er s h e was g iv en m o ney b y n o np art y tru ck d ri v er

Pat t ers on o r an y o ne el s e t o rel eas e her cl ai m s (s h e h ad n o t b een ). W e fi nd n o ab u s e

o f d i scret i o n i n t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g

, wh i ch b al an ced Tu ck er’ s i nt eres t i n s h o wi n g

t h at Ro b ers o n co u l d po s s i b l y b e b i a s e d ag ai n s t Bro wn ’ s i nt eres t i n ex cl u d i n g

ev i d en ce fro m wh i ch a ju ry co u l d p os s ib l y as s u m e sh e h ad i ns u ran ce co v erag e, an d

f o u n d t h at t h e ev i d en ce o f bi as su b s t an t i al l y o ut wei g h ed t h e ev i d en ce o f u n f a i r

p reju d i ce.

W h i l e Bro wn al s o arg u es t h at an y i n t eres t Ro b ers o n h ad i n t h e t ri al ’ s o u t co m e

was es t ab l i s hed by ev i d en ce o f h er rel at i o n sh i p t o Bro wn , an d n o t b y ev i d en ce t h at

18s h e h ad p rev io us l y recei v ed m o n ey fro m Bro wn t o s et t l e an y cl ai m s ag ai n s t h er, t h at

arg u m en t g o es t o t h e wei g h t of t h e ev i d en ce t o s h o w b i as an d n ot t o i t s ad m i s s i b i l i t y

.

S e e Ro b er t S t o va l l Fa mi l y, L.P. v. Ca r r o l l Co u n t

y W a t er Au t h

. , 2 5 5 Ga. Ap p

. 2 2 3

,

2 2 4 -2 2 5 (5 6 4 SE2 d 7 6 3 ) (2 0 0 2 ).

4

. Bro w n arg u es t hat t h e tri al co u rt erred in ch arg i n g th e ju ry t h at t he d efen d an t

h ad t he b u rd en of p r o v i n g t h e n eg l i g en ce o f t h e no n part y tru ck d ri v er b y a

p rep o n d eran ce o f t he ev i d en ce. W e rev i ew a t ri al co u rt ’ s ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n s as a wh o l e,

d e n o v o, fo r l eg al erro r. Ea g l e Jet s

, LLC v

. A t l a nt a Jet

, 3 21 G a. A p p

. 38 6

, 3 9 8 (6 )

(7 4 0 SE2 d 4 3 9 ) (2 0 1 3 ).

In i t s p rel i m in ary ch arg e, aft er i n st ru ct i n g t h e ju ry t h at T u ck er h ad th e b u rd en

o f p ro v i ng h er cas e b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce an d d efi n i n g wh at t h at m ean t

,

t h e t ri al co u rt i n s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry reg ard i n g B r o w n ’ s b u rd en o f p ro o f as t o t h e

n o n p art y t ru ck d ri v er as fo ll o ws :

No w, t h e d efen d an t h as fi l ed an i s su e wh i ch i s k n own as an affi rm at iv e

d efen s e t o th e cl ai m s o f t h e p l ai n t iff. Sp eci fi cal l y

, t h ere i s a n o n p art y

p ers on t h at t h ey a r e c l a i m i n g h as s o m e res po n s i b i li t y h ere. As t o t hat

d efen s e, t he defen d an t b ears t h e b u rd en o f p ro o f b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f

t h e ev id en ce.

19In t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’ s fi n al ch arg e, aft er i ns t ru ct i n g t h e ju ry t h at Tu ck er h ad to

p ro v e h er cas e b y a p rep on d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce an d ex p l ai n i ng wh at th at m ean t

,

t h e t ri al co urt co n ti n u ed :

Defen d an t Tam

m y Bro wn h as fi l ed wh at i s k n o wn as an affi rm at iv e

d efen s e t o th e Pl ai n t i ff Ti s h a Tu ck er’ s c l a im

. Sp eci fi cal l y

, Defen d an t

Tam m y Bro wn al l eg es t h at Lee P a t t ers o n [,] wh o i s n o t a part y t o t h i s

act i o n [,] cau s e[ d ] o r co n t ri b u t ed t o th e d am ag es cl ai m ed b y T i s ha

Tu ck er. As t o th at d efen se, Defen dan t Tam m y Bro wn b ears t h e b u rd en

o f p ro of b y

a p rep o n deran ce o f t h e ev i den ce.

Th e t r i a l co u rt t h en g av e fu rt h er i n s t ru ct i o n s reg ard i n g ci rcu m s tan t i al an d

dir e c t e vide nc e

, d e position te stim ony

, e xpe r t w it n es s es

, cred i b i l i t y

, an d i m p each m e nt,

am on g o th ers

, b efo re b eg i n n i n g t h e ch arg es o n p ro x i m at e cau s e. T h e c o u r t t h en

s t op p ed

, s en t t he ju ry o u t, an d co n ferred wi t h th e p art i es

. W h en t h e j u ry ret u rn ed

, t h e

co u rt ch arg ed t h em

as fo l l o ws :

Th e cas e b efo re y ou i s o n e i n w h i ch t h e P l a i n t i ff m u s t p ro ve b y a

p rep on d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce t h at t h e n eg l i g en ce o f t h e Defen dan t, i f

an y , was a p ro x im at e cau s e o f t h e i n ju ri es t o t h e Pl ai n t i ff.

No w, fo r y ou t o co n s i d er t h e n eg li g en ce o f t h e n o n p art y Lee Pat t ers o n

,

t h e Defen d an t m

u s t p ro ve b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce t h at th e

20n eg l ig en ce o f Lee Pat t ers o n

, i f an y

, was a p ro x i m at e cau s e o f th e

i n ju ri es t o t h e Pl ai n t i ff.

Th e co u rt t h e n d efi n ed p ro x i m at e cau s e an d ord i n ary n eg l ig en ce, n ot i n g t h at t h e

o rd i n ary n eg l i g en ce s t an d ard ap p l i ed t o b o t h Bro wn an d n o n p art y Pat t ers on

.

W h i l e Bro wn arg u es t h at s h e as k ed t h e co u rt t o ch arg e t h e ju ry th at s h e h ad t h e

b u rd en o f s h o wi n g a rat i o nal bas i s fo r ap po rt i o ni ng fau l t t o t h e n o n p art y

, s h e ci t es to

n o wri t t en req u es t t o ch arg e o n t h e d efen d an t’ s b u rd en o f p ro o f reg ard i n g a n o n p art y

.

In h er b ri ef, Bro wn ci tes t o a d i s cu s s i o n bet ween t h e co u rt an d p art i e s b e f o re t h e

co u rt ’ s p rel i m i n ary ch arg e t o t h e ju ry

, befo re o p en in g s tat em en t s

, al t ho u g h t h e s o u rce

o f t h e l an g u a g e t o w h i c h Bro wn ob ject ed i s u ncl ear, an d al s o ci t es t o t h e co urt ’ s

p rel i m i nary ch arg e i ts el f. Sh e d o es n o t ci t e t o o r o t h erwi s e ad d res s t h e fi n al ch arg e

o n t h e i s s u e, h er o b

ject i o n s t o i t

, i f an y

, o r ei t h er p art y ’ s wri t t en req u es ts t o ch arg e,

l ead i ng t h i s co urt on a l en g t h y s n i p e h un t t h ro u g h t he 3 5 -v o l u m e reco rd fo r t h e

i n fo rm at i o n

. On t h i s g r o u n d a l o n e, w e fi n d n o m eri t t o Bro wn ’ s en um erat i o n

. See

Jo n es

, Ma r t in

, & c. v. W

es t r ex Co r

p

. , 3 1 0 Ga. Ap p. 1 9 2

, 1 9 8 (3 ) (b ) (7 1 2 SE2 d 6 0 3 )

(2 0 1 1) (“ W i t ho u t k n o wi n g th e p reci s e ch arg e req u es t ed , we can no t rev i ew t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d en i al o f t h at req u es t ”; fu rt her, “ ab s en t a wri tt en r e q u e s t t o ch arg e o r

[s u b s t an t i al erro r harm fu l as a m at ter o f l aw] , we wi l l n o t rev ers e fo r fai l u re t o g i v e

21an i n s t ru ct io n .”); Sa n d er s v. Bo wen

, 1 9 6 G a. Ap p. 6 4 4

, 6 4 6 -6 4 7 (3 ) (3 9 6 SE2 d 9 0 8 )

(1 9 9 0) (ab s en t reco rd ci tat i o n t o ch arg e an d o b j ect i on , i s s u e i s wai v ed ).

Ab s en t a wri tt en req ues t t o ch arg e, we rev i ew t he pro p ri et y o f t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

i n s t ru ct i o n s t o d et erm i ne w h et h er t h e co u rt m ad e a su b st an t i al erro r t h at was h arm fu l

as a m at t er o f l aw. OCGA § 5 -5 -2 4 (c); Pen d a r v i s C o n s t r

. Co r

p

. v. Co b b

Co u n t y-Ma r i et t a W

a t er Au t h

. , 2 3 9 Ga. Ap p

. 1 4

, 1 6 -1 7 (2 ) (5 2 0 SE2 d 5 3 0 ) (1 9 9 9 )

(ch arg e s h i ft i n g b u rd en o f p ro v i n g v al u e fro m co n dem n o r t o co n dem n ee rev ers i b l e

erro r d es p i t e co n d em

n ee’ s fai lu re t o o b

j ect ). Up o n rev i ew, we fi n d n o s u b s t an t i al

erro r h ere.

“ Th e b u rd en o f p ro o f g en eral l y l i es u po n t h e p art y wh o i s as s ert i n g o r affi rm i n g

a fact an d t o th e ex i s t en ce o f wh o s e cas e o r d efen s e t h e p ro o f o f su ch fact i s

es s en t i al .” OCGA § 2 4 -1 4 -1

. A d efen d an t ’ s cl ai m th at a n o np art y i s l i ab l e fo r al l o r

s o m e o f t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s d am ag es i s an as s ert io n o f fact

, t he e x i s t en ce o f w h i ch i s

es s en t i al t o t he d efen s e. As an affi rm at i v e defen s e, t h e d efen dan t b ears t h e b u rd en o f

p ro v in g h er as s ert i o n o f fact

. See M et r o po l i t a n Pu bl i sh er

s Rep r es en t a t i ves v.

Ar n sd o r f f

, 1 5 3 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 7

, 8 78 (1 ) (2 6 7 SE2 d 26 0 ) (1 9 8 0) (affi rm at i v e d efen s e t h at

p l ai n t i ff h ad t o rem ai n em p l oy ed t o recei v e co m

m i s s i on s was a fact u al i ss u e o n wh i ch

t h e d efen d an t b o re th e b u rd en o f p ro o f). Gen eral l y

, a d efen d an t rai s i n g an affi rm at i v e

22d efen s e ad m it s t h e es s en t i al fact s o f a p l ai n t i ff’ s co m p l ai n t

, “ b u t [t h en ] s et [s ] u p o t h er

fact s i n ju s t i fi cat i on or av o i dan ce, o r o t h er s p eci al m at t ers n ot m erel y el ab o rat i n g o r

ex p lai n i n g a g en eral d en i al

, . .. t h e b urd en o f p ro vi n g wh i ch b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e

ev i d en ce wi l l res t o n t h e d efen d an t s .” W i l l i a ms on

, In ma n & Co

. v. Th o mp so n

, 5 3 Ga.

Ap p . 8 2 1 , 8 2 7 (a) (1 8 7 SE 1 9 4 ) (1 9 3 6 ).

A d efen d an t n eed n o t n eces s ari l y co n ced e th e es s en t i al fact s of t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s

cl ai m t o rai s e a b u rd en -s hi ft i n g affi rm at i v e d efen s e, h o wev er. A d efen dan t m ay d en y

t h e es s en t i al fact s as s ert ed an d al s o cl ai m in th e al t ern a t i v e t h at

, i f t he p l ai n t i ff h ad

b een i nju red

, t h e i n

ju ry was d u e t o c a u s es o th er t han t h e d efen d an t ’ s act i o n s

. Fo r

ex am p l e, wh en a pl ai n t iff s u ed t h e d ri v er o f a c a r f o r h er s o n ’ s wro n g fu l deat h

, t h e

d efen d an t s d en i ed l iab i l i t y b ut al s o co n t en ded t hat t h e ch i l d ’ s d eat h was p ro x i m at el y

cau s ed b y h i m d as h i n g i n t o t h e s t reet

. McCr a cki n v. McKi n n ey

, 52 Ga. Ap p

. 5 1 9 (1 8 3

SE 8 3 1 ) (1 9 3 6 ). Th is d efen s e w as m o re t h an a s i m p l y d en i al o f n eg l i gen ce, cau s at i o n,

an d d am ag es

, an d o n ce t h e p l ai n t i ff h ad m ad e o u t her p ri m a faci e cas e, “ t h e b u rd en

res t ed u p o n th e defen d an ts

... t o s h o w b y a p rep on d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce, i n o rd er

t o su s t ai n t h ei r p l ea, t hat t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s i n ju ri es w ere cau sed b y h er o wn n eg li g en ce.”

Id . at 5 2 1 . Th e t ri al co urt p ro p erl y ch arg ed t h e ju ry

t h at

23wh en t h e defen d an ts d en y an al l eg at i o n m ad e by t he p lai n t i ff, t h e b u rd en

res t s u p o n t h e p l ai n t i ff t o es t ab l i s h t h e t ru t h of s u ch al l eg at i o n s as m ay

b e d en i ed b y t h e d efen d an t ; b u t w h e r e t h e d efen d an t s s et u p an

af f ir m at i v e defen s e, t he b u rd en res ts u p o n t h e d efen d an t s to es t ab li s h th e

t ru t h o f s u ch affi rm at i v e d efen s e b y a p rep o nd eran ce o f ev i d en ce.

Id . at 5 2 0

.

Th e affi rm at i v e d efen s e t h at t h e ju ry s h ou l d ap po rt i o n fau l t ag ai n s t s o m eo n e

o t h er t h an t h e d efen d an t i s no d i fferen t an al y t i cal ly fro m t h e defen s e o f co n tri b u t o ry

n eg li g en ce. On ce t h e p lai n t i ff es t ab l i s h es h er p ri m a faci e cas e, t h e d efen dan t s eek i n g

t o es t ab l i s h t h at s om eo n e el s e b ears res p o n si bi l i t y fo r t h e d am ag es h as t he b u rd en o f

p ro v in g t h at d efen s e. See Pemb r o o k Mg mt

. v. Co s s a b o on

, 1 5 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 7 5

, 6 7 9 (6 )

(2 7 8 SE2 d 1 0 0 ) (1 9 8 1 ).

Bro wn ’ s o n l y s u p p o rt fo r h er p ro p o s i t i o n t h at t h e d efen d an t n eed o n l y s h o w

a rat i o nal b as is fo r ap po rt i o n i n g fau l t i s Levi n e v. S u n t r u s t Ro bi ns o n Hu mp h r ey

, 3 2 1

Ga. Ap p

. 2 6 8

, 27 2 -2 7 3 (1 ) (4 0 SE2 d 6 7 2 ) (2 0 1 3 ). Bu t t h e i s s u e deci d ed i n Levi n e was

wh et h er t h e t ri al co u rt erred in g ran t i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o t h e defen d an t o n t h e

p l ai n t i ff’ s co u n t s eek i n g d am ag es fo r t h e t o tal d es t ru ct i o n o f t h e b u s i n es s . Th e t ri al

co u rt g ran t ed t h i s m o ti o n o n t h e g ro u n d t hat t h e p l ai n ti ff h ad fai l ed t o es t ab l i s h h o w

i t s d am ag es s h o ul d b e ap p ort i o n ed b et ween t h e defen d an t an d t h e n o n -p art y

24d efen d an t s wi t h w h om t h e p l ai n t i ff h ad s et t l ed

. Id

. at 2 7 1 (1 ). In rev ers i n g

, t h i s co u rt

h el d t h at

, wh i l e t h e ap p o rt io n m en t s t at u t e d i rect s t h e ju ry to co n s i d er t he n eg l i g en ce

o r fau l t o f a n o np art y t h at h ad s et t l ed wi t h th e p l ai n t i ff, OCGA § 5 1-1 2 -3 3 (d ) (1 ), at

t h e s u m m ary ju dg m en t st ag e, t h e p l ai n t i ff n eed o nl y es t ab l is h t h at t h e d efen d an t ’ s

“ al l eg ed act i o n s were th e p ro x i m at e cau s e o f an ap p ro x i m a t e am ou n t o f dam ag e.”

Lev in e, 3 2 1 Ga. Ap p . at 2 7 2 (1 ).

Fu rt her, ch arg in g t h e ju ry t h at t he d efen d an t m u s t es t ab li s h o n ly a “ rat i o n al

b as i s ” f o r f i n d i n g a n o n p art y at fau l t w o u l d g i v e t h e ju ry n o g u i d an ce ab o u t h o w

m u ch ev i d en ce t h e d efen d an t m u s t p ro d u ce t o m eet h er b urd en of as s i g n i ng fau l t to

a n o n -p art y

. Th e “ rat i o n al b as i s ” t es t i s m o s t o ft en ap p l i ed wh en an al y zi n g wh et h er

a st at u t e vi o l at es a co n s t it u t i o n al ri g ht to s u b s t an t i v e d u e p ro ces s an d eq u al

p ro t ect i o n

. See, e.g

., S t a t e v. Na n ker vi s

, 2 9 5 Ga. 4 0 6

, 4 08 ( 1 ) ( 7 6 1 SE2 d 1 ) (2 0 1 4 )

(“ Un l es s g o v ern m en tal act i o n i n fri n ges u po n a fu n d am en t al ri g h t or t h e co m p l ai n i n g

p art y i s a m em

ber o f a su s p ect cl as s,” t h e rev i ewi ng co u rt “ w i ll u ph o l d t h e st at u t e i f,

u n d er an y co n cei vab l e s et o f fact s

, t h e cl as si fi cat i o n s d r a w n i n th e s tat u t e b ear a

rat i o nal rel at i o n s h i p t o a l e g i t i m at e en d o f g o vern m en t n ot pro h ib i ted b y t h e

Co n s t i t u t i o n

. ”) Th i s i s

, o f co u rs e, n ot t h e c o n t ex t ap pl i cab l e t o t h i s cas e i nv o l v i n g

ap p ort i o n m en t o f fau l t b et ween a d efen d an t an d a n o n -p art y d efen d an t

.

25Ad d it i on al l y

, t h e Geo rg i a Su p rem e Co u rt cas e to wh i ch Le v i n e ci t es fo r i t s

“ rat i o n al b as i s ” p ro p o si t i o n ad d res s ed on l y t h e t h res h o l d q u es ti o n of wh et h er a ju ry

co u ld ev en co n s i d er t h e “ fau l t ” of a cri m i n al n o n p ar t y d e f e n d an t i n a p rem i s es

l i ab i l i t y cas e

. Co u ch v. Red R o o f In n s

, 2 91 Ga. 35 9 (7 29 SE2 d 37 8 ) (2 0 12 ). Th e

Su p rem e Co u rt i n Co u ch d i d n o t h o l d t h at th e d efen d an t ’ s b u rd en a t t r i al was t o s h o w

a rat i o n al b as i s fo r th e ap p o rt i o n m en t o f d am ag es t o a n o n part y ; i t s im p l y n o t ed t h at

t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s arg u m en t t hat a n eg l ig en t lan d o w n er co u l d s ho w no rat i o nal b as i s fo r

ap p ort i o n i n g d am ag es b et ween i t s el f an d a cri m i n al as s ai l an t was a fact u al i s s u e, n ot

a l eg al o n e. Id

. at 3 6 6 ( 1 ). W h i l e Levi n e fu rt h er s t at es t hat “ i t i s t h e d efen d an t ’ s

b u rd en t o es t ab l i s h a rat i on al b as i s fo r ap p o rt i o n i n g fau l t t o a n o np art y ,” t o t he ex t en t

t h at s t at em en t can b e read t o m ean t h at th e t ri al co u rt sh o ul d ch arg e a ju ry t h at t h e

d efen d an t ’ s b urd en o f p ro o f i s t h e “ rat i o n al bas i s ” t es t

, i t i s d i c t a. 3 2 1 G a. Ap p

. at

2 7 2

.

In s u m

, Bro wn ’s a p p o rt i o nm en t cl ai m w as an affi rm at i v e d efen s e. Sh e

t h erefo re h ad t h e b u rd en o f sh o wi n g b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev id en ce t h a t t h e

n o n p art y t ract or-t rai l er d ri v er was neg l i g en t an d t h a t h i s n eg l i g en ce p ro x i m at el y

cau s ed al l o r s o m e p o rt i o n o f d a m a g es t o t h e p l ai n t i ff. Acco rd in g l y

, t h e t ri al co u rt

co m m i t t ed n o erro r i n ch arg i n g t h e ju ry t o t h at effect

.

265

. Bro wn co n t en d s t h at th e t ri al co urt erred in d ecl i n i n g t o g i v e h er req u es t to

ch arg e t h e ju ry t h at “ t h e i ss u e o f l i ab i l i t y t u rn s o n t h e u se o f reas o n ab l e ca re u n d er

ex i s t in g co n d i ti o n s rat h er t han o n co m p l ian ce wi t h g ov ern m en t reg u l at io n s ,” b o th

i n i t i al l y an d i n res p o n s e t o a ju ry q u es t io n as k i n g w h et h er i t was i l l eg al t o park o v er

t h e fo g l i ne o n t o t he ro ad way

. Bro wn el ici t ed t es t i m o n y fro m o n e of t h e res p o n d i n g

d ep ut i es t h at n o law p r o h i b i t ed p ark i n g wh ere n o n-p art y Pat t ers o n h ad p ark ed t h e

t ract o r-t rai ler. Lat er, d u ri n g i ts d el i b erat i o n

, t h e ju ry s u b m i tt ed a wri tt en q u es t i o n to

t h e t r i a l co u rt as k i n g

, “ Is i t u n l awfu l fo r a v eh i cl e t o at an y ti m e p ark o v er t h e fo g

l i ne? An d

, i f s o

, h o w f

a r i n t o t h e ro ad [i s ] t h at [] l eg al ? ” Th e t ri al co u rt res p o n d ed

,

“ No

. It i s n o t a v i ol at i o n of t he cri m i n al l aw o r t h e t raffi c l aw t o p ark o v er t h e fo g

l i ne.” Bro wn o bject ed t o t h e an s wer, arg u i n g t hat t he co u rt s h o u l d h av e rech arg ed t h e

ju ry on o rd i n ary neg l i g en ce an d al s o s ho u l d h av e g i v en her req u es t t o ch arg e t h at

l i ab i l i t y dep en ded o n t h e u s e o f reas o nab l e care u n d er t h e co n d i t io n s.

In s u p p ort o f h is p ro p o s ed ch arg e, Bro wn ci t es S i n cl ai r Di s p o s a l S v c

. v.

Och oa

, 26 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1 7 2 (5 9 3 SE2 d 3 58 ) (2 0 0 4 ), i n wh i ch w e a f f i r m ed t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d e n i al o f a req u es t t o ch arg e t h at a g arb ag e t ru ck d ri v er co u l d n o t b e fo u n d

n eg li g en t fo r p ark i n g h al fway i n t o t he ro ad b ecau s e h e h ad t es t i fi ed t h at h i s h azard

warn i n g l i g h ts h ad b een o n

. T h a t r e q u e s t t o ch arg e was i m p ro p er b ecau s e, wh i l e a

27v i o l at i o n o f Geo rg i a’ s Un i fo rm Ru les o f t h e Ro ad “ p res en t s a pri m a faci e cas e o f

n eg li g en ce p er s e” ab sen t a v al i d d efen s e, t h e o p p o s i t e is n o t t r u e

, b ecau s e

“ [c] o m p l i an ce wi th t h e ru l es d o es n o t n eces s ari ly de m o n s t r at e t hat a d efen d an t

ex erci s ed o rd i n ary

care.” Id . at 1 7 3.

Pret erm it t i n g wh et h er Bro wn ’ s req ues t ed ch arg e was s u b s t an t i al ly co v ered by

t h e co u rt ’ s ch arg e an d v erd i ct fo rm as a wh o l e, an y erro r i n fai l i n g t o g i v e t h i s ch arg e

was h arm l es s. See Fu l t o n Na t

. Ba n k v. Ma r s h a l l

, 2 4 5 Ga. 7 4 5

, 7 4 7 (2 6 2 SE2 d 6 1 )

(1 9 8 0). By ap po rt i on i n g 4 0 percen t fau l t t o t h e n o n -p art y d efen d an t t ract o r-t rai l er

d ri v er, t h e ju ry cl earl y fo u nd th at h i s “ co m p l i an ce wi t h t h e ru l es ” d i d n o t d em o n s t rat e

t h at h e ex erci s ed ord in ary care.

6

. Bro wn arg u es th at t h e t ri al co u rt e r r e d i n refu s i ng t o al l o w h er to cro s s

ex am i n e Tu ck er ab o ut w h y h er m o t h er t o o k p i ct u res o f h er in ju red arm wh i l e s h e was

i n t h e h o sp i t al

. Tu ck er af f i r m ed i n h er dep o s it i on t h at o n e reas o n t h e p ict u res were

t ak en w as s o s h e co u l d u s e t h e m l at er, i f n eces s ary

, i n a p ers o n al i n ju ry su i t

, an d

Bro w n arg u ed t h at t h i s ev i d en ce was rel ev an t t o s ho w t h at “ ri g ht th en l ay i n g [s i c] in

t h at h os p i t al b ed

, t h e Pl ai nt i ff i n t h i s cas e, co n fi rm in g i t in h er o wn d ep os i t i o n

, was

al read y p l an n i n g t o fi l e a l aws u i t

. ”

28“ Th e t ri al co urt h as a wi d e l at i t u d e o f d i s cret i on i n c o n t ro l l i n g t he s co p e o f

cro s s ex am i n at i o n an d i n t h e ab s en ce o f an ab u s e o f t h at d i s cret i o n i t s ex erci s e wi l l

n o t b e co n tro l l ed .” Temp l e v

. T e m p l e

, 2 2 8 Ga. 7 3

, 7 4 (1 8 4 SE2 d 1 8 3) (1 9 7 1 ). Th e

t ri al co u rt s u st ai n ed Tu ck er’ s o bject i o n s, fi n d i n g t h at the pic tur e s had p rev i o us l y b een

ad m i t t ed wi t h ou t o b

j e c t i o n wh en Tu ck er’ s m o t h er t es t i fi ed

, an d wh o t o o k t h em o r

wh y t h ey were t ak en was i rrel ev an t . W e fi nd n o ab u se i n t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d i s cret i o n

i n s u s t ai n i n g t h e o b

ject i o n

.

7

. Fi n al l y

, Bro wn co n ten d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred wh en i t a n s wered a ju ry

q u e s t i o n “ b y read i n g th at p art o f O CGA § 5 1 -1 2 -3 3

... [t h at ] s t at es t h at t h e

p ercen t ag es o f fau l t o f n o n p a r t i e s s h al l b e u sed o n l y i n t h e d et erm i n at i on o f t h e

p ercen t ag e o f fau l t o f nam ed p art i es .” Bro wn reas o n s t h at re a d i n g t h i s s t at u t e

i m p r o p e r l y i n d i cat ed to t h e ju ry t h at Tu ck er wo u l d o n l y reco ver t ho s e d am ag es

ap p ort i o n ed t o Bro wn

, as s ert i n g wi t h o u t ci t at i on t o t he reco rd t h at t h e ju ro rs “ cl earl y

ad ju s t e d t h e i r p ercen t ag es o f fau l t s o as t o en s ure t h at Tu ck er recei v ed a cert ai n

am ou n t o f m o n ey .” Ou r rev iew o f th e reco rd rev eal s n o ev i d en ce t o s u p p o r t t h at

as s ert i o n an d n o erro r i n t h e ch arg e.

Th e ju ry as k ed a to t al o f t h ree q u es ti o n s rel at ed t o ap p o rt i o n m en t

. Th e fi rs t t wo

q u es ti o n s

, w h i ch cam e aft er th e ju ry d el i b erat ed fo r al m o s t an h o u r an d a h al f, were

29(1 ) “ H o w wo u ld t h e p ercen t ag e affect t he am o u nt o f s et tl em en t ? ”, 6 an d (2 ) “ On t h e

p ercen t ag es o f fau l t, i s t h is b as ed o n wh at t h e l aw i s o r wh at w e, as a ju ry

, feel t h at

s h e was at fau l t ? ”

Th e tri al co u rt d i s m i s s ed t h e ju ro rs fo r l u n ch an d co n su l t ed at l en g t h wi t h t h e

at t o rn ey s ab ou t h o w t o an s wer t h o s e t w o qu es t io n s

. A ft er t h e ju ry ret u rn ed t o t h e

co u rt ro o m

, t h e t r i al co u rt fi rs t cau t i o n ed i t n o t t o s p ecu l at e reg ard i n g t h e

co n seq u en ces o f i t s v erd i ct o r m ak e as s u m p ti on ab ou t m at t ers n o t i n ev id en ce. Th e

t ri al co u rt res p o n d ed t o t h e fi rs t q u es t i o n

, as k i n g h o w th e p ercen t ag es affect ed t h e

am ou n t o f d am ag es , as fo l l o ws :

No w, l ad ies an d g en t l em en

, y o u r jo b i s, fi rs t o f al l, t o s et t h e t o t al

a m o un t o f d am ag es t h at y o u feel l i k e are ap p ro p ri at e fo r t h e dam ag e s

i n cu rred by M s

. Ti s h a T u ck er. Yo u are t h en

, aft er t h at d eci s io n is m ad e,

y o u are t h en to g o an d d et erm i n e h o w m u ch fau l t

, i f an y

, was d ue to th e

d efen d a n t Bro wn an d h o w m u ch fau l t

, i f an y

, is d u e t o t h e n o n p art y

Pat t ers o n

, M r. Pat t ers o n

. Yo u are n ot t o b e co ncern ed wi t h an y th i n g el s e

o t h er t h an th e lat t er q u es t i o n s

. Do n o t red u ce y o u r to t al d am ag es b y an y

p ercen t ag e o f fau l t ap p o rt i o n m en t . Th e Co u rt wi l l t ak e i t fro m t h ere.

6 T h e p art i es ag reed t h at t h e ju ry m ean t t o as k h o w th e p ercen tag e o f f a u l t

wo u l d affect t he am ou n t o f an y dam ag es awar d ed rat h er t han th e am o u n t o f an y

s et t l em en t

.

30In res p o ns e t o t h e ju ry ’ s s eco n d q u es ti o n (“ On th e p ercen tag es o f fau l t

, i s t h i s

b as ed o n wh at t h e l aw i s o r wh at we, as a ju ry

, feel th at s h e was at fau l t? ”), t h e t ri al

co u rt res p o n d ed

, “

No w, y o u r jo b i s t o ap p ly t he l aw an d m y i n s t ru ct i o n s t o t h e fact s

as y ou

, t he ju ry

, fi n d t h em to b e b y a p rep o nd eran ce o f t h e e vi d en ce th at h as b een

p res en t ed t o y ou

. An d t h e co n s eq u en ces o f y ou r v erd i ct are m at t ers t o b e ad d res s ed

b y t h e Co u rt an d t h e p art ies aft er y o u hav e reach ed y ou r v erd i ct o n t h o se i s s u e s a t

h an d.”

Aft er d el i berat i n g fo r an o t h er t h ree h o u rs an d t wen t y m i n u t es

, t h e ju ry as k ed

t o l o o k at i t s fi rs t q u es t i o n t o th e co u rt an d al s o as k ed

, “ W h at d oes [“ ] t he percen t ag e

o f fau l t [“ ] m ean ? ” Th e t ri al co urt an s wered as fo l l o ws :

No w, i n as s es s i n g percen t ag es o f fau l t

, y o u

, t h e ju ry

, s hal l co ns i d er th e

fau l t o f a ll p ers on s o r en t i t i es wh o y o u feel co n t ri b u ted t o t h e al l eg ed

i n ju ry o r d am ag es reg ard l es s o f wh et h er t h e p ers o n o r en t i t y was o r

co u l d h av e b een n am ed as a p art y i n t he s u i t . [OCGA § 5 1-1 2 -3 3 (c).]

No w, t h e as s es s men t o

f per cen t a g es o

f f a ul t o f n o n p a rt ies

, wh i ch is Lee

Pa t t er s on

, s h o u l d b e u s ed o n l

y i n t h e d et er mi n at i on o

f t h e per cen t a ge

o f f a ul t of t he n a med pa r t

y

. [OCGA § 51 -1 2-3 3 (f) (1 ).] Fo r ex am pl e, i f

yo u d e t erm i n e t h at b o th Tam m y Bro wn an d Lee Pat t ers o n are at fau l t

,

t h en y o u

, t h e ju ry

, m

u s t det erm i n e h ow m

u ch each is at fau l t

. An d t h en

t h e t o t al o f t h e t w o percen t ag e[s ] t h at y o u d et erm i n e m u s t b e 1 0 0

p ercen t

.

31Rev i ewi n g t h e ju ry ch arg es d e n o v o an d as a wh o l e, we fi n d n o erro r i n t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s res p o ns e t o t h e ju ry ’ s q u es t i o n

. Th e p ort i o n t o w h i ch Bro wn o b ject s i s a d i rect

q u o t e fro m t h e s t at u t e an d a co rrect s t at em en t o f t h e l aw. Th e t ri al co urt h ad al read y

ch arg ed t h e ju ry t h at i t was “ req u i red t o rep o rt o n [i ts ] verd i ct fo rm t h e p ercen t ag e o f

fau l t b o rn [e] b y t h e Defen d an t

, i f an y

, an d an y n eg l i g en t n o n part y, i f a n y .” Th e

v erd i ct fo rm i n s t ru ct ed t he ju ry t o w ri t e i n t he p ercen t ag es of b o t h Bro wn ’ s an d

Pat t ers on ’ s fau l t an d fu rt her s ai d t h at th e t w o p ercen t a g e s “ m u s t t o tal 10 0 %.” Th e

v e rd i ct fo rm b ei n g p art o f th e ch arg e, Ch ed der s i n g h v. St at e

, 2 9 0 Ga. 68 0

, 6 8 2 (2 )

(7 2 4 SE2 d 3 6 6 ) (2 0 1 2 ), an d co n s i d eri n g t he ch arg es as a wh o l e, we fi n d n o erro r.

Ca s e No . A1 6

A0 3 4 5

Tu ck er’ s arg u m en t s i n h er cro s s -ap p eal al l rel at e t o h er p o s i t i o n t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt erred i n fai li n g t o g ran t h e r m o t io n fo r a d i rect ed v erd i ct o f l i ab il i t y s o l el y

ag ai n s t Bro wn

. Sh e co nt en d s t h at Bro wn ’ s ad m i s s i on th at sh e w as b li n d ed b y t h e su n

wh en s h e s t ru ck t h e t ract o r-t rai l er req u i red t h e t ri al co urt t o fi n d as a m at t er o f l aw

t h at Bro w n ’ s act i on s were t h e s ol e p ro x i m at e cau s e o f t he co l li s i o n ; t h at t h e ev i d en ce

s h o wed t h e t ract o r-t rai ler dri ver s t o p p ed o n t h e ro ad s id e d ue t o a m ech an i cal fai l u re

rat h er t han v o l un t ari l y ; an d t h at Bro wn p res en t ed n o ev i d en ce t h at th e t ract o r-t rai l er

d ri v er b reach ed a d ut y

o w ed t o Tu ck er t h at cau s ed t h e co l l i s i o n

.

327

. Tu ck er fi rs t arg u es t h at t h e p ro per s t an d ard o f rev i ew fo r h er fi rs t t wo

arg u m en t s i s d e n ov o rat h er t h an “ an y ev i d en c e,” b ecau s e n o ev i d en ce co n t ro v ert s

Bro w n ’ s t es t i m o n y t h at s h e co u l d n ot s ee wh ere sh e w a s g o i n g a n d h i t t h e t ract o rt r a iler, an d n o ev i d en ce i n d i cat es t h at t h e t ract o r-t rai l er d ri v er h ad b een n eg l ig en t

. Sh e

fu rt her co n t en d s t h at t h e “ an y ev i d en ce” s t an d ard ap p l i es in co n s i d eri ng h er arg u m en t

t h at Bro wn p res en t ed n o ev i d en ce o f n o n p art y Pat t ers o n’ s fau l t

.

Tu ck er co n fu s es t hes e t wo s t an d ard s o f rev i ew. “ [O] n ap p eal fro m t h e d en i al

o f a m o t i o n fo r a d i rect ed verd i ct

, ... w e co ns t ru e t he ev id en ce i n t h e l i g h t m o s t

fav o rab l e t o t h e p art y o pp o s i n g t h e m o t i o n, an d t he s t an d ard o f rev i ew i s wh et h er

t h ere i s an y ev i d en ce t o s u p p o rt t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

. Ho wev er, we rev i ew q u es t i o n s o f

l aw d e n o vo .” (Pu n ct uat i o n an d fo o t n ot e s om i t t ed

. ) So u t h l a nd Pr o p an e, In c. v.

McW ho r t er , 3 12 Ga. Ap p . 8 1 2 , 8 1 3 (7 2 0 SE2 d 2 7 0 ) (2 0 1 1).

Tu ck er i s s i m

p l y i n co rrect t h at “ [r] eg ard les s o f an y cl ai m ed n eg l i g en ce by

an y o n e el s e, Bro wn ’ s ad m i s s i o n s req u i red a fi n di ng as a m at ter o f l aw t h at h er act i on s

were t he i n t erv en i n g

, s o l e p ro x i m at e cau s e o f t h e co l l i s i o n.” W h e t h er Bro wn o r

Pat t ers on were n eg l ig en t an d i f s o

, w h e t h er an d t o wh at deg ree t h ei r n eg l i g en ce

p ro x im at el y cau s ed Tu ck er’ s d am ag es was p reci sel y t h e q u es ti o n b efo re t h e ju ry

,

ev en i f Bro wn ad m i t t ed th at s h e was b l i n ded b y t h e s un

. As t h is co u rt h as prev i o u s l y

33reco g n ized

, “ a d ri v er, h o wev er p ru d en t he m ay be, m u s t h av e t i m e en o u g h aft er b ei n g

s u d d en l y b l i n d ed [b y t h e s u n ] t o real i ze t h e si t uat i on wi t h w h i ch h e i s co n fro n t ed

b efo re h e can be ex p ect ed t o s t o p h i s v eh i cl e.” Br o wn v. At l a nt a Ga s Li gh t

, 9 6 Ga.

Ap p . 7 7 1 , 7 7 6 (1 ) (1 0 1 SE2 d 6 0 3 ) (1 9 5 7 ),

8

. Al l t h ree en um erat i o n s fai l i f Bro wn p res en t ed an y ev i d en ce t h at n o n p art y

Pat t ers on was n eg l i g en t an d t h at h i s n eg l i g en ce was a p ro x i m at e c au s e o f Tu ck er’ s

i n ju ri es . W e t h u s co ns i d er wh et h er an y ev i d en ce s up p o rt s t h e t ri al co urt ’ s d en i al o f

Tu ck er’ s m o t i on fo r a d i rect ed v erd i ct

.

Tu ck er’ s fi rs t wi t n es s was Bro wn

, wh o m s h e cal l ed fo r cro s s

- e xam i n at i o n.

Aft er co m

p l et i n g t h e ex am i n at i o n

, Tu ck er m o v ed fo r a d i rect ed verd i ct t h at B ro wn

was 1 0 0 p ercen t l i ab l e fo r Tu c k e r’ s d am ag es

. Sh e arg u ed t h at

, ev en if t h ere were

ev i d en ce t h at t h e t ract o r-t rai l er d ri v er was n eg l i g en t

, Bro w n ’ s “ act i o n o f co n t i n u i n g

t o d ri v e wh en s h e co u ld n o t s ee [was ] th e s o l e p ro x im at e cau s e o f t h i s co l l i s i o n .” As

Bro w n c o r rect l y n o t ed i n res p on s e at t ri al

, t h i s m o ti o n was p rem at ure, h av i n g b een

m ad e b efo re Bro wn h ad an o pp o rt u n it y t o pres en t an y ev id en ce at al l

. T u ck er m ad e

a s i m i l ar m o t i o n aft er Bro wn res t ed , wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt al so d en i ed

.

On ap p eal

, Tu ck er arg u es t hat “ Bro wn ’ s n eg li g en ce w as t h e s o le p ro x i m at e

cau s e o f t h e co l l is i o n ,” an d t h at t h e tri al co u rt th erefo re erred i n den y i n g h er m o t i o n

34fo r a d i rect ed verd i ct o f 1 0 0 p ercen t l iab i l it y ag ai n st Bro wn

. Sh e l i k en s t h e ev i d en ce

t o t h at p res en t ed i n W

a l l a ce v. Y

a r br o ug h

, 1 5 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1 8 4 (2 7 0 SE2 d 3 57 ) (1 9 8 0 )

an d B r o w n

, 9 6 Ga. Ap p

. 7 7 1

. Nei t h er cas e in v o l v ed ap p o rt i o n m en t

, h o w ev er, an d

n ei t h er es t ab l i sh es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n t h i s cas e.

In W a l l a ce

, 1 5 5 G a. Ap p

. at 1 8 5 (1 ), we h e l d t h a t t h e t ri al co urt p ro p erl y

d i rect ed a v erd i ct t o a t h i rd -p art y d efen dan t d ri v er wh o s t o pp ed su d d en l y wh en a car

p u l l ed i n fro n t o f h e r

, aft er wh i ch t he d efen d an t d ri v er s t ru ck t he t h i rd -p art y

d efen d an t d ri v er fro m b eh i n d

. Bu t th e act i o n s of t h e t h i rd -p art y d efen d an t i n q u i ck l y

s t op p i n g h er car i n res p o n s e t o an o th er car t hat h ad s u dd en l y p u l l ed i n fro n t o f h er are

n o t an al o g ou s t o n o n p art y d efen d an t Pat t ers o n ’ s act i o n s i n l e a v i n g p art o f h i s ri g

p ro t ru d i n g i n to th e ro ad

, es p eci al ly ab s en t ev i den ce s h o wi n g w h y he di d s o

. Nei t h er

Pat t ers on n o r t h e o wn er o f t he t ract o r-t rai l er ri g wh o s e d ri v eway Pat t ers o n d ro v e o ut

o f t es t ifi ed at t ri al

.

No r do es Br o wn

, 96 Ga. Ap p

. 7 7 1

, es t ab l i sh erro r. In Br o wn

, we h el d t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt p ro perl y su s t ai n ed a g en eral d em u rrer t o a co m

p lai n t al l eg i n g t h at t h e

d efen d an t At l an t a Gas Li g h t fai l ed t o u s e ord i n ary care b y n eg l i g en t l y l eav i n g l o o s e

d i rt in t h e ro ad wh i l e ex cav at i n g fo r a g as l i n e, wh i ch cau s ed t h e p lai n ti ff’ s d eced en t

t o s k i d an d fl i p h i s d u m

p t ru ck

. Id

. at 7 75 (1 ). Th e co m p lai n t ex cu s ed th e d eced en t ’ s

35fai l u re t o o b serv e t h e d i rt b efo re h e h i t i t b y av erri n g b o t h t h at h e h ad b een b l i n d ed

b y t h e s u n an d t h at h i s v i s i o n h ad b een p art ial l y o b scu red

, b u t i n g ran t i n g t h e g en eral

d em u rrer, we h el d t h at

, co n s t ru i n g t h e av erm en t s m o s t s t ro n g l y ag ai n s t t h e p l ead er,

t h e co m p l ai n t s h o wed t h at t h e d eced en t co n t in u ed t o dri v e w h i l e h e “ co u l d n o t s ee

t h e way ah ead

. ” Id

. at 7 7 6 (1 ).

Tu ck er arg ues t h at u nd er t h e reas on i n g o f Br o wn

, 9 6 Ga. A p p

. 7 7 1, t h e t ri al

co u rt w as req u i red to d i rect a v erd ict as si g n in g s o l e pro x i m at e cau s e fo r t h e co l l i s i o n

t o Bro wn

. Bu t t h e an al y s i s in Br o wn aro s e in t h e co n tex t o f a p re-Ci v il Pract i ce Act

g en eral d e m

u rrer, wh en a p l ai n t i ff h ad to p l ead a ci v i l co m pl ai n t wi th ex act i n g

p art i cu l ari ty

t o s u rv i v e. See g en eral l y PMS Co n s t r . Co

. v. DeKa l b Co u n t y

, 2 4 3 Ga.

8 7 0

, 8 7 1 (1 ) (2 57 SE2 d 28 5) (1 9 7 9 ) (u n d er t ech n i cal ru l es o f p l ead i n g in fo rce b efo re

ad o pt i o n o f C i v i l Pract i ce Act

, a co m p l ai n t fai l i n g t o al l eg e th e ad o p t i o n o n t h e

m i n u t es o f a co n t ract wi t h co u n t y was s u bject t o g en eral d em u rrer, b u t th at p l ead i n g

r e q ui rem en t d id n o t s u rv i v e p as s ag e o f CPA); S u mmer -Mi n t er & As s o cs

. v

. G iordano

,

2 3 1 G a. 60 1

, 6 0 5 (2 0 3 SE2 d 1 7 3 ) (1 9 7 3 ) (“ [A] d v en t o f t h e Ci v i l Pract i ce Ac t

.. .

ab o li s h ed cau s es o f act i on wh erei n t h e cas e h ad t o b e s et fo rt h fu l l y i n t h e

p l ead i n g s .”).

36Fu rt her, i n t h i s cas e, t h e ev i d en ce a b o u t h o w lo n g an d t o w h at ex t en t Bro wn

was u nab l e t o see t h e ro ad d u e t o t h e s et t i n g s un co n s i s t s o f m u ch m o re t h an a s i m

p l e

av erm en t t h at s h e w as b l i n d ed b u t co n t i n u ed t o d ri v e. Tu ck er as k ed Bro w n i f s h e

co n ten d ed t h at t h e s u n wa s i n h e r e ye s s o bri g h tl y “ at th e po i n t s h o wn at Pag e 6 o f

Ex h ib i t No

. 2 ” (i t i s no t cl ear fro m th e r e co rd w h i ch p o in t t h at i s ), an d s h e rep l i ed

,

“ Th e s u n was i n m

y ey es

. Bu t I was

— I co u l d s ee; b u t wh en I g o t o n fu rt h er aro u n d,

I co ul d n ’ t s ee.” Aft er Bro w n sai d s h e wo u l d hav e dri v en aro un d t h e tru ck i f s h e h ad

s e e n i t

, Tu ck er as k ed

, “ So i t’ s n o t t h e t ru ck t hat cau s ed th e co l li s io n ; it w as y o u r

fai l u re t o s ee th e t ru ck ? ” Bro wn res p o n ded

, “ No ,” an d fu rt h er tes t i fi ed t h at i f s h e h ad

k n o wn t h ere w as s o m et h in g in t h e ro ad sh e w o u l d h a v e s t o p p ed an d wai t ed fo r t h e

s u n t o g o d o wn

.

W h en T u ck er was as ked i f s h e h ad b een bo t h ered b y t h e s u n at an y t im e b efo re

t h e co l l is i o n

, s h e res p o n d ed

, “ No t at al l .” Ro b ers o n

, Bro wn ’ s o t h er p as s en g er,

t es t i fi ed t h at t h e s un w as n o t b l i n d i n g wh en t h ei r p i ck u p t u rn ed o n to t h e ro ad wh ere

t h e co l l is i o n o ccu rred

. Th e su n d i d b eco m e b li n d i n g t o h er at s o m e p oi n t b efo re t h ey

h i t t h e t ru ck

, b u t s h e w as n ot s u re h o w m u ch t i m e p as s ed bet ween t h en an d t h e

co l l i s i o n

. In t he l as t few s eco n d s b efo re t h e co l l i s i o n

, Ro bers o n sai d

, s h e w as

“ s q u i n t in g h er ey es ” b ecau s e t h e s u n was i n h er face, an d t h at affect ed h er ab i l i t y to

37s ee t h e t rai l er. It was n o t bl in d i n g h er t h e en t i re t im e t h ey were o n t h e ro ad

, an d d id

n o t ren d er h er co m

p l et el y u n ab l e t o s ee.

Th e ev i d en ce pres en t ed d i d n o t d em an d a fi n d in g t h at Bro wn w as t h e s o l e

p ro x im at e cau s e o f t he co l l i s i o n

, an d t h e tri al co u r t d id no t err in d en y i n g Tu ck er’ s

m o ti o n fo r d i rect ed v erd i ct t o t h at effect

.

9

. T u ck er’ s fi n al t wo arg u m en t s, th at n on p art y Pat t ers o n was n o t n eg l i g en t as

a m at t er o f l aw, are s i m i l arl y u n av ai l i n g

, reg ard les s o f wh et her i t w as l eg al fo r h i m

t o s t o p an d p ark o n t h e s i d e o f t h e ro ad

. A l eg al act can s t il l b e n eg l i gen t

, an d u n l i k e

t h e fact s p res en t ed i n Br o wn v. S h i ver

, 1 8 3 G a

. A pp

. 2 07

, 2 0 8 (1 ) (3 5 8 SE2 d 8 6 2 )

(1 9 8 7), t h e fact s i n t h i s cas e d o n o t es t ab l i sh t h at th e Pat t ers o n h ad m ad e reas o n ab l e

effo rt s t o s t art t h e s t al l ed v eh icl e, t h at he h ad ju s t ret ri ev ed i t fro m a rep ai r s ho p

, t h at

h e h ad p r i o r no ti ce it was l ik el y t o s t al l, o r t h at Bro wn co u l d n o t h av e s een an y

warn i n g in d i cat o rs in t i m e t o av o i d h i t t in g th e t rai ler. Bro wn ’ s t es t i m o n y t hat s h e d id

n o t see t h e t rai l er b efo re s h e h i t i t d o es n o t d em an d t h e co n cl us i o n as a m at t er o f l aw

t h at s h e s t i l l wo u l d n o t h av e s e en i t i f Pat t ers o n h ad act i vat ed t h e tract o r-t rai l er’ s

h azard l i gh t s o r s et u p co n es t o warn o n co m i n g t raffi c. On e wi t n es s d es cri b ed t h e

en g in e as m ak in g “ s p i t t er s p at ter” no i s es an d g oi n g dead as Pat t ers o n d ro v e i t d o wn

t h e d ri v eway

. An o t h er wi tn es s t es t i fi ed th at t h e t ra c t o r e n g i n e was “ s p u t t eri n g l i k e

38s o m et h in g was w ro n g wi t h t he m o t o r” as i t p ul l ed do wn t h e d ri v eway t o wa r d t h e

ro ad

, b u t Pat t ers o n kep t d ri vi n g u n t i l t h e ri g was o u t o f t h e d ri veway an d t h e en g i n e

d i ed

. 7 Th e wi t n es s al s o t es t i fi ed t h at t h e t ract o r-t rai ler own er d eci d ed t h ey s h o u l d to

m o ve t h e t ai l en d o f t h e t r a i l e r o u t o f t h e ro ad way s o n o o n e el s e wo u ld hi t i t

. As

m en t i o n ed p rev i o u s l y

, t h e ev i d en ce i n di cat ed t h at t h e t rai ler was s t ick i ng s om ewh ere

b et ween a few in ch es t o t wo feet i n t o t h e ro ad b efo re t h e o wn er u s ed h i s bu l l d o zer to

p u s h t h e t rai l er en d co m

p l et el y o u t o f t h e ro ad

.

Th e ev i d en ce d i d n o t es t ab l i s h as a m at t er of l aw th at Tu ck er w a s e n t i t l e d to

a d i rect ed v erd i ct t h at Pat t ers o n was zero p ercen t at fau l t an d Bro w n w as 1 00 p ercen t

at fau l t

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, t h e t ri al co u rt d id n o t err in d en y i n g Tu ck er’ s m o t i o n fo r a

d i rect ed v erd i ct

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Bo g

g s a n d Ri ckma n , JJ., co ncu r

.

7 Co u n s el in d i cat ed at o ral arg u m en t t h at t h e t ract or s t o pp ed b ecau s e i t h ad ru n

o u t o f g as , t h o u gh t h at ev id en ce was n ot p res en t ed t o t h e ju ry

.

39