WHOLE COURT

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

phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d in our cle r k’s off i c 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

Nov em ber 20, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 5 A1 49 1 . GOLDSTEIN, GARBER & SALAM A, LLC v . J . B.

M C F A D D E N , J u d g e.

A ju ry fo u n d Go l d s t ei n

, Garb er & Sal am a, LLC (“ G GS” )

, a d en t al p ract i ce,

l i ab l e t o J

. B. o n t h e t h e o r y t h a t GGS’ s n eg l i g en ce res u l t ed i n h er b ei n g s ex u al l y

as s au l t ed b y Cert i fi ed R e g i s tered Nu rs e An es t het i s t Pau l Serd u la wh i l e s he was u n d er

an es t h es i a at GGS’ s o ffi ce, an d t h e t ri al co u rt en tered ju d g m en t on t h at v erd i ct

. On

ap p eal

, GGS co n t en d s (1 ) t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y i n g i t s m ot i o n fo r d i rect ed

v erd i ct b ecau s e J

. B. d i d n o t es t ab l i s h t h at GGS was l i ab l e un d er ei t h er a t h eo ry o f

n eg li g en ce p er s e o r pro fes s i o n al n eg l i g en ce; (2 ) t h at th e t ri al co u rt erred i n m ak i n g

n u m ero u s ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g s; an d (3 ) th at i t i s e n t i t l ed t o a n ew t ri al b ecau s e t h e

ju ry ’ s ap po rt i o nm en t o f 1 0 0 p ercen t o f th e l i ab i li t y t o GGS i s ag ai n s t t h e g reat wei g ht

o f t h e ev id en ce. W e fi n d , h o w ev er, t h at t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err ei t h er i n al l o wi n gt h e ju ry

t o d eci d e t h e i ss u e o f GGS’ s l i ab i l i t y o r i n h er ev id en t i ary

ru l i ng s

, an d t h at

GGS wai v ed ap p el l at e rev i ew o f i t s arg u m en t t h at t h e j u ry ’ s a p p o r t i o n m en t o f

l i ab i l i t y en t i t l ed GGS t o a n ew t ri al . Acco rd i ng l y , we affi rm

.

1

. Fa ct s

.

W e rev i ew t h e j u d gm en t en t ered b y th e tri a l c o u r t a f t er ap pro v al o f a ju ry

v erd i ct u s i n g t h e “ an y ev i d en ce t es t, ab sen t an y m at eri al erro r o f l aw.” Bo s t on Men ’s

Hea th Cen t er v. Ho wa r d

, 33 1 Ga. Ap p

. 2 1 7

, 2 1 8 (7 1 5 SE2 d 7 0 4 ) (2 0 11 ) (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ). So v iewed

, th e reco rd refl ect s t h at o n Sep t em b er 1 6

, 2 0 0 9

, J

. B. un d erwen t

a t hree-p has e d en t al pro ced u re at GGS. In o n e p h as e o f t h e p ro ced u re, Dr. M au ri ce

Sal am a s u rg i cal l y i n s t al l ed a p o s t fo r a t o o t h i m p l an t

. N u r s e S e rd u l a ad m i n i s t ered

an es t h es i a t o J

. B. fo r t h i s p h as e. In a s u b s eq uen t p h as e, Dr. Dav i d Garb er p l aced a

t em p o rary d en tal p ro s t h et i c d ev i ce i n p l ace o f t h e fu t u re i m p l an t.

Bet ween t h e co n cl u s i o n o f Dr. Sal am a’ s su rg i cal p ro ced u re an d t h e beg i n n i n g

o f Dr. Garb er’ s co s m et ic p ro ced u re, J

. B. rem ai n ed i n a h eav i l y s ed at e d s t a t e fo r

ap p ro x i m at el y t w o h o u rs

. At s o m e p o i n t d u ri n g t hi s peri od

, J

. B. was l eft al o n e wi th

Serd u l a, wh o m ad e t h ree b ri ef vi d eo reco rd i n g s o f h er: o ne i n wh i ch h e l o o k ed d o wn

h e r sh i rt at h er b reas t s

, an o t h er i n wh i ch h e m o ved h er u n derwear t o r e v e a l h e r

v ag in a, an d a t hi rd i n wh i ch h e p l aced h i s p en i s b et ween h er l i p s

. Th es e vi d eo s o f J

.

2B. were l at er di s co v ered wh en Serd u l a’ s h i d den cel l p h o n e was fo u nd re co rd i n g

em pl o y ees i n GGS’ s o ffi ce res t ro o m

. Ex a m i n at i o n o f t h e p h o ne al s o rev eal ed

v i d eo tap es o f Serd u l a s ex u al l y m o les t in g o th er an es t h et i zed p at i en t s

. Serd u l a

ev en tu al l y p l ead ed g ui l t y t o n u m ero u s ch arg es rel at ed t o t h e v i le act s h e p erp et rat ed

ag ai n s t J . B. an d o t her v i ct i m s , an d h e was s en t en ced t o l i fe i n p ri s o n

.

J

. B. su ed GGS, as s ert i n g

, am o ng o t h er t h i n g s

, t h a t GGS w as l i ab l e fo r

n eg li g en ce p er s e an d p ro fes s i on al n eg l i g en ce. Th e cas e pro ceed ed t o t ri al

, at wh i ch

ex p ert ev i d en ce was pres en ted t h at GGS h ad vi o l at ed cert ai n st at ut o ry req ui rem en t s

fo r den t i s t s s up erv i s i n g cert ifi ed reg i s t ered n u rs e an es t h et is t s a n d ha d v i o l at ed cert ai n

s t an d ard s o f care fo r m o n i t o ri n g p at i en t s u n d er an es t h es i a

. Th e t r i al co u rt d en i ed

GGS’ s m o t i o n fo r d i rect ed v erd i ct

, an d t h e ju ry award ed $ 3 .7 m i l l i o n t o J

. B. an d

ap p ort i o n ed 1 0 0 p ercen t o f t h e l i ab i l i t y t o GGS an d n o n e t o n o n -p art y Serd u l a. (J

. B.

h ad i n it i al l y s ued Serd u l a, b ut v o l u n t ari l y d i s m i s s ed h i m fro m t h e act i o n b efo re

t ri al .)

2

. Di r ect ed ver d i ct

.

GSS arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co urt erred i n d en y i n g i t s m o t i o n fo r d i rect ed v erd i ct

b ecau s e J

. B. d i d n o t p ro v e l i ab i l i t y b y n eg l i g en ce p er se o r p ro fes s i o n al n eg l i g en ce.

GGS arg u es th at th ere was n o t e v id en ce t o s h o w th e p ro x i m at e cau s e req u i red fo r

3b o t h cau s es of act i o n

. It fu rt h er a r g u es t h at J

. B.’ s n eg li g en ce p er se cl ai m fai l s

b ecau s e t h e st at u t e at i ss u e d i d n o t i n t en d t o p rev en t t h e h arm s h e s u ffered

, an d t h at

h er p ro fes s i o n al n eg li g en ce cl ai m fai l s b ecau s e th e co n du ct at i s s u e d i d no t i n v o l v e

t h e ex erci s e o f p ro fes s i o n al ju d g m en t an d s ki l l

. W e fi n d n o m eri t in t hes e arg u m en t s

.

Th ere w as ev i d en ce u p o n wh i ch t h e ju ry co u l d fi n d t h e p ro x i m at e cau s e req u i red fo r

b o t h o f t h es e cau s es of act i o n

, an d GGS’ s o t h er arg u m en t s rel at ed t o th es e cau s es o f

act i on l ack m eri t

.

a. Pr o xi m a te ca us e.

W e fi rs t ad d res s pro x i m at e cau s e b ecau s e i t i s an el e m en t req ui red fo r b o th

n eg li g en ce p er s e an d pro fes s i o n al n eg l i g en ce. Al l en v. F a mi l y Med i ca l Cen t er

, 2 8 7

Ga. Ap p

. 52 2, 5 24 (1 ) (6 5 2 SE2 d 1 7 3 ) (2 0 0 7 ) ; N o r ma n v. Jo n es La n g La S a l l e

Amer i ca s , 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p. 6 2 1 , 6 2 8 (2 ) (b ) (6 2 7 SE2 d 3 8 2) (2 00 6 ).

No s i n g le s t an dard ex is t s t o d et erm i n e p ro x im at e cau s at i o n

. At l a n ta Ob s t et r i cs

& Gyn eco l o g

y Gr ou p v. Co l ema n

, 2 6 0 Ga. 5 69 (3 9 8 SE2 d 16 ) (1 99 0 ). In s t ead

, as o u r

S u p rem e Co u rt h as ex p lai n ed

, “ p ro x i m at e cau s e i s al w ay s t o b e d et erm i n ed o n t h e

fact s of each cas e u p o n m ix ed co n s i d erat i o ns o f l o g ic, co m m o n s en s e, ju s t i ce, p o l i cy

an d p reced en t .” Id . (ci tat i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ). Th i s d et erm i nat i o n

4req u ires b o th fact fi n di n g i n t h e “ wh at h ap p en ed ” s en s e, an d an

ev al uat io n o f wh et h er t h e fact s m eas ure u p t o t h e l eg al s tan d ard s et b y

p reced en t

. Ord i n ari l y

, bo t h d et erm i n at i o ns are ap p ro p ri at el y m ad e b y a

ju ry u po n ap pro p ri at e in st ru ct i o n s fro m t h e j u d ge. T h e d eci s i o n m ay be

m ad e b y t h e tri al ju dg e o r t h e ap p el l at e co u rt o n l y if reas o n ab l e p ers o n s

co u l d n o t d i ffer as t o b o t h t h e rel ev an t fact s an d t h e ev al u at iv e

ap p l icat i o n o f leg al st an d ard s (s uch a s t h e l eg al co n cep t o f

“ fo res eeab i li t y ”) t o t h e fact s

.

Id

. (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). St at ed an o t h er way

, q u es t i on s reg ard in g p ro x i m at e cau s e “ m ay

o n l y be d e t e r m i n ed b y th e co u rt s i n p l ai n an d u n d is p u ted cas es .” On t a r i o S ewi n g

Ma ch i n e Co

. v. S

mi t h

, 2 7 5 Ga. 6 8 3

, 6 86 (2 ) (5 7 2 S E 2 d 5 3 3 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (ci t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

“ [T] h e p ro x i m at e cau s e of an i n ju ry m ay b e t wo s ep arat e an d d is t in ct act s

. . .

act i ng co n cu rren t l y an d

. . . t h e m ere fact t hat t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s i n ju ri es w o u ld n o t h av e

b een s us t ai n ed h ad on l y o ne o f t h e act s

. . . o ccu rred wi l l n o t o f i t s el f op erat e t o l i m i t

t h e o t h er act as co n s t i t u t i ng pro xi m at e cau s e.” Gr an g er v. MS T Tr an s p.

, 3 2 9 Ga. Ap p.

2 6 8

, 2 7 0 ( 1 ) ( 7 6 4 SE2 d 8 2 7 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ). W h i l e

Gr a ng er i n v ol ved t wo act s o f n eg l ig en ce, t h e ru le it s et s o u t ap p l i es wh ere, as h ere,

t h ere i s a n eg l i g en t act an d an i n t erv en in g cri m i n al act

. Geo r g i a Dep t . o

f Tr a n s p

. v.

5Owen s

, 3 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 3

, 1 3 1 (2 ) (7 6 6 SE2 d 56 9 ) (2 0 1 4 ) ; Gr a n g er

, 3 2 9 g at 2 7 0

-

2 7 2 (1 ).

Fo r an i n t erv en i n g act t o b eco m e t he s o l e p ro x i m at e c a u se o f a

p l ai n t i ff’ s i nju ri es

, th e i n t erv en i ng act m u s t n o t h av e b een fo res eeab l e

b y t h e d efen d an t, m

u s t n o t h av e b een t ri g g ered b y t h e defen d an t ’ s act

,

an d m u s t h av e b een s u ffi ci en t b y i t s el f t o c a u s e t h e i n ju ry

. If th e

ch aract er o f t h e i n t erv en i n g act was s u ch t h at i t s p ro bab l e o r n at u ral

co n s eq u en ces co u l d reas o n ab l y h av e b een an t i ci p at ed

, ap p reh en d ed

, o r

fo res een b y t h e o ri g i n al wro n g -d o er, t h e cau s al co n n ect io n i s n o t

b ro k en

.

Za l d iva r v. Pr i cket t

, 2 9 7 G a. 5 89

, 6 0 1 -6 0 2 (2 ) (7 7 4 SE2 d 6 8 8) (2 0 1 5 ) (ci t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n om i t t ed ; em

p h as i s s u p p l i ed ); s ee al s o On ta ri o S ewi n g Ma ch i n e Co

. , 2 7 5

Ga. at 6 86 (2 ). M o reo v er, J

. B., t h e p l ai n t i ff i n t h i s cas e,

n eed n o t pro ve t h at [GGS] c o u l d fo res ee t h e preci s e m an ner i n wh ich

[s o m eo n e to ok ad v an t ag e o f h e r v u l n erab l e s t at e w hi l e an es t het i zed ]

.

Th e fo res eeab i l i t y an al y s i s i s n o t t hat s p eci fi c: t h e rel ev an t i n q u iry i s n o t

wh et h er t h e ex ac t

. . . in t erv en in g act w as fo res eeab l e, b u t wh et h er, as

a g en eral m at t er, t h e o ri g i n al n eg li g en t act o r s h o u ld h av e an t i c i p at ed

t h at t h i s g en eral t y

p e o f h arm

m i g h t res u lt

.

Gr a ng er

, 3 2 9 Ga. A p p. at 2 71 (1 ) (ci t at i on an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). An d as wi t h t h e

b ro ad er q u es t i o n o f p ro x i m at e cau s e, “ t h e q u es t i o n of reas o nab l e fo res eeab i l i t y o f a

cri m i n al act is g en eral l y fo r a ju ry ’ s d et erm i n at i o n rat h er th an

. . . ad ju d i cat i o n b y t h e

6co u rt s .” S t u r b r i d g e Pa r t n er

s v. W a l ker

, 26 7 Ga. 7 8 5

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

(ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at io n o m i t ted ).

Th i s i s n o t a p l ai n an d u nd i s p u t ed cas e s u it ab l e fo r ad ju d i cat i o n b y t h e co u rt s

.

Th e ev i d en ce d o es n o t s h o w, as a m at t er o f l aw, t h at GGS co u ld n ot h av e reas o n ab l y

an t i ci p at ed t h at i t s pat i en t m i g h t b e v i ct i m i zed i f left sed at ed t o a m e d i cal l y

u n ju s t i fi ab l e d eg ree an d fo r m ed i cal l y -u n ju s ti fi ab l e am o u n t o f ti m e wi t h o u t p ro p er

s u p erv i s i o n . Th e reco rd i n th i s cas e i s “ rep l et e wi t h fact u al d i s p ut es [t h at p ert ai n t o

t h e f o r e s e e ab i li t y o f t h e i n terv en i n g act ] an d t h e l eg al i nferen ces t o b e d rawn fro m

t h o s e fact s .” At la n t a O b st et r i cs & Gyn eco lo g y G r o u p

, 2 60 Ga. at 5 70 (fo o t n o t e

o m it t ed ).

Th e ev i d en ce m

u s t b e vi ewed i n t h e l i g ht m o s t fav o rab l e t o J

. B. See Ma t h ews

v. Cl o u d

, 2 9 4 Ga. 41 5

, 41 6 (1 ) (7 5 4 SE2 d 70 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (i n rev i ewi n g wh et h er t ri al co u rt

erred i n d en y i n g m o t i o n fo r d i rect ed v erd i ct

, we co n s t ru e ev i d en ce i n l i g h t m o s t

fav o rab l e t o p rev ai l i n g part y ). So v i ewed

, t h e ev i d en ce s h o wed t h at Serd u l a s ed at ed

J

. B. at an u n n eces s ari l y d eep l ev el an d fo r t wo h o u rs m o re t han neces s ary

. Th i s n ot

o n l y ren d ered h er a m o re vu ln erab l e t arg et

, bu t al so co ns t i t u ted a v i o l at i o n o f t h e

s t an d ard o f care an d pl aced h er at u n n eces s ary ri sk o f m ed ical co m p l i cat i o n s

, wh i ch

fo rt un at el y

d id n o t m at eri al i ze.

7Th e ev i d en ce, v iewed m o s t fav o rab l y t o J

. B., al s o s h o wed t h at t h e d en ti s t s

p u rp ort i n g t o s u perv i s e Serd ul a were n o t q u al i fi ed o r co m pet en t t o d o s o

. Th ey h ad

n o t u n d erg on e t h e t rai n i n g o r earn ed t h e cert i fi cat i o n s req ui red o f d en t i s t s wh o wo u ld

s u p erv i s e nu rs e an es t het i s t s

, see OCGA § 4 3-1 1 -2 1 .1 (g o v ern i n g q u al i fi cat i on s

req u i red fo r d en t is t t o s u p erv i s e cert i fi ed reg i s tered n u rs e an es t h et i s t ad m i n i s t eri n g

g en eral an es t h es i a), wh i ch an ex p ert w i t nes s o p i n ed ren d e r e d t h em u n ab l e to

reco g n ize J

. B.’ s l ev el o f sed at i o n

. Th ey d i d n o t kn o w h ow t o read an an es t h es i a

ch art

, an d t h ey d ep en d ed u p o n Serd u la t o m ak e d eci s i o n s reg ard in g J

. B.’ s an es t h es i a.

Th i s ev i d en ce creat ed ju ry q u es t i on s as t o wh et h er i t w as fo res eeab l e t h at t h e

GGS den t i s t s ’ fai l u re t o d i s ch arg e t h ei r s t at u to ry d u t i es an d p ro fes s i o n al o b li g at i on s

wo u l d m ak e J

. B. vu l n erab l e t o t h e p re d at i o n s he s u ffered

. See O n t a ri o S ewi n g

Ma ch i n e Co

. , 2 7 5 Ga. at 6 8 7 (2 ) (fi n d i n g ju ry q u es t i o n s reg ard i n g th e reas o nab l en es s

o f s ewi n g m ach in e m an u fact urer’ s recal l an d t h e fo res eeab i li t y o f p l ai nt i ff’ s fai l u re

t o co m p l y wi t h i t ).

It i s t ru e, o f co urs e, t h at m o s t an es t h et ized p at i en t s are n ot as s au l t ed

. An d t h ere

was n o ev i d en ce t h at G GS kn ew o f Serd ul a’ s prev i ou s as s au l t s o n p at i en t s . W e are

n o t p ers u ad ed

, h o w ev er, t h at the r e la tive ly unc om m on nat u re o f Serd ul a’ s in terv en i n g

act s co m p el s a d et erm in at i o n t hat GGS co u ld n o t reas o nab l y hav e fo res een t h em

. In

8Med i ca l Cen t er Ho s p

. Au t h

. v. Ca ven d

er

, 3 3 1 Ga. A p p

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

an d Br o wn v. Al l -Tech In ves t men t Gr o u p

, 26 5 Ga. Ap p

. 8 8 9 (5 9 5 SE2 d 5 17 ) (2 0 0 4 ),

we s t res s ed t h e u n u s u al n at u re o f wo rk p lace sh o ot i n g i n c i d en t s t o h o l d th at t h o s e

i n ci d en t s were n o t reas on ab l y fo res eeab l e as a m at t er o f l aw. Ca ven d er

, su p ra at 4 7 5

-

4 7 6 (1 ) (a); Br own

, s u p ra at 89 5

- 8 9 6 (1 ). Bu t un l i k e t h o s e cas es

, wh ich co n cern ed

cl ai m s o f o rd i nary n eg l i g en c e a n d prem is es l iab i l i t y

, t h i s cas e i n v o l v es cl ai m s o f

n eg li g en ce p er s e an d p ro fes s i o nal n eg l i g en ce b as ed o n v i o l a t i o n s of st at u t o ry

req u i r e m e n t s an d p ro fes s i o n al s t an d ard s t h at ad d res s t he s peci fi c n eed s an d

v u l n erab i l i t i es o f an an es t h et i zed pat i en t

. Ex p ert t es t i m o n y was p r e s e n t ed t h at t h e

d en tal p ro fes s io n is aware t h a t a s s au l t s l i k e t h e o n e J

. B. s u ffered d o o ccu r an d

act i vel y s eek s t o p rev en t t h em

. Th ere was t es t i m o n y

, fo r ex am pl e, t h at s ex u al as s au l t s

an d m ol es t at i o n are co n s id ered “ n ev er ev en t s ” i n t h e m ed i cal co m m u n i t y

–

o ccu rren ces t h at a r e p r e v e n t ab l e an d s ho u l d “ n ev er” h ap pen

. An d t h ere was ex p ert

t es t i m o ny t h at t h e req u irem en t fo r m o n i t o ri n g an an e s t het i zed pat i en t ex i s t ed to

s afeg u ard p at i en t s afet y , am o n g o t h er reas on s

.

Gi v en th e s peci fi c s t at u t o ry req ui rem en t s an d pro fes s i o n al s t an dard s th at ex i s t

t o p ro t ect an es t h et i zed p at i en t s , we d o n o t b el i ev e t h at t h e ab u s e o f an an es t h et i zed

p at i en t i s “ s o u n u s u al

, co n t rary t o o rd i n ary ex p eri e n c e

, a n d rare t h at n o reas o n ab l e

9ju ry

co u l d fi n d [GGS] s h o u l d h av e g uard ed ag ai n s t [s u ch ab u s e] .” Ca ven d er , s u p ra

at 4 7 5 (1 ) (a) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i on om i t t ed ; em p h as i s s u p p l ied ). W e s h o u l d n ot

s u b s t i t u t e o u r ju d g m en t fo r t hat o f t h e ju ry as t o w h et her p ro xi m at e cau s e ex i s t ed in

t h i s cas e.

b

. Neg l i g en ce p er s e.

In ad d i t i o n t o arg u i n g t h at p ro x i m at e cau se di d n o t ex i s t as a m at t er o f l aw,

GGS al s o arg u es th at t h e t ri al co u rt s h o u l d n o t h av e p erm it ted J

. B.’ s n eg l ig en ce p er

s e cl ai m to g o t o t h e ju ry b ecau s e OCGA § 4 3 -1 1-2 1 .1

, t h e st at ut e GGS v i o lat ed

, was

n o t i n t en ded t o prev en t t h e ty p e o f i n ju ri es s he su ffered

. See OCGA § 4 1 -1 -6 (wh en

l aw req u i res p ers o n t o “ p erfo rm an act fo r t h e b en efi t o f an o t her o r t o refrai n fro m

d o i n g an act w h i ch m ay i n ju re an o t h er, al t h o u g h n o cau s e o f act i o n is g i v en in

ex p r e s s t e r m s

, t h e in

ju red part y m ay reco ver fo r t h e b reach o f s u ch l eg al d u t y i f h e

s u ffers d am ag e t h ereb y ); M cCl a i n v. Ma ri n er Hea l t h Ca r e

, 27 9 G a

. A p p

. 4 1 0

, 4 1 1

(2 ) (6 3 1 SE2 d 43 5 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (g en eral l y

, p l ai nt i ff m ay as s ert cl ai m o f n eg l i g en ce p er s e

ari s in g fro m v i ol at i o n o f s t at u t e i f, am o ng o t h er t h i n g s, “ t h e harm co m p lai n ed o f was

t h e s am e h arm

t h e s t at ut e was i n t en d ed t o g u ard ag ai n st ”). W e d i s ag ree.

OCGA § 4 3 -1 1 -2 1 .1 g o v ern s t h e q ual i fi cat i o n s r e q u i red fo r a d en t i s t to

s u p erv i s e a cert i fi ed reg i s t ered n u rs e an es t het i s t a d m i ni s t eri n g gen eral an es t h es i a.

10W h i l e OCGA § 43 -1 1 -2 1 .1 d o es n o t l i s t t he h arm s i t i n ten d s to g uard ag ai n s t

, i t s

req u i rem en t s

, am o n g o t h er th in g s

, ad d res s a d en t i s t ’ s ab i l i t y t o co m p et en t l y supe r

vise

a cert i fi ed reg i st ered n urs e an es t h et i s t. Th ere was ev i d en ce t h at t he GGS d en t i s t s d id

n o t m eet th es e s t at u t o ry req u i rem en t s an d were u n ab le t o reco gn i z e J

. B.’ s

i n ap p ro p ri at e l ev el o f s ed at i o n

.

An d t h e l eg i s l at i v e i n t en t b eh i n d t h i s s tat u t e i s s et o u t ex p res s l y in an o t h er

Co d e s ect i o n wi t h i n t h e ch ap t er: “ [ S] u ch u nl i cen s ed act i v i t i es as are m en t i o n ed i n t h i s

ch ap ter [i n cl u d in g a d en t i s t wi t h ou t pro p er q u al i fi c a t i o n s al l o wi n g a cert i fi ed

reg i s tered n u rs e an es t h et i st t o a d m i n i s t er an es t h es i a] are a m en ace an d a n u i s an ce

d an gero us t o t he p u b li c h eal t h

, s afet y

, a nd wel fare.” OCGA § 4 3 -1 1-2 (e) (em p h as i s

s u p p li ed ). Th i s b ro ad l an gu ag e en co m p as ses un reas o n ab l e ri s k s

. Cf. Cen t r al

An es t h es i a As s o c. v. W

o r t h y

, 2 5 4 Ga. 7 2 8, 7 32 (2 ) (3 3 3 SE2 d 82 9 ) ( 19 8 5 ) (s i m i l ar

an es t h es i a s t at ut e ap p l y i n g t o d o ct o rs s erv es t o p ro t ect o t h ers ag ai n s t u n reas o n ab l e

ri sk s ); Gr o o ver v. Jo h n s t o n

, 2 7 7 G a

. Ap p

. 12

, 1 6 (1 ) (b ) (6 2 5 SE2 d 4 0 6 ) (2 0 0 5 )

(s t at u t e p erm i tt i n g d o ct o rs t o d el e g a t e t o n u rs es w i t h s p eci fi c cert i fi cat i o n s t h e

au t h o ri t y t o o rd er cert ai n d ru g s

, t reat m en t s

, an d d i ag no s t i c st u d ies

, an d wh ich d i d n ot

ex p li ci t l y s t at e a p u rp o s e, creat ed a “ d u t y r e co g n ized b y t h e law t o p ro t ect p at i en t s

ag ai n s t u n reas o n ab l e ri s k ”). Co n t rary t o t h e v iew ex p res s ed b y J u dg e Di l l ard i n h i s

11d i s s en t

, t h i s l an g u ag e en co m p as s es b o t h m ed i cal an d n o n -m ed ical d an g ers th at co u ld

a ri s e wh ere, as h ere, a d en t i s t i s i n cap ab l e o f ad eq u at el y s up erv i s in g a cert i fi e d

reg i s tered n u rs e an es t h et is t

, i n cl u d i n g t h e i n creas ed ri s k o f a p at i en t t o ab u s e wh en

t h e pat ien t i s p l aced u n d er a g reat er l ev el o f s ed at io n th an neces s ary fo r a g re a t e r

am ou n t of t i m e t h an n eces s ary

. See Br o wn v. Bel i n f a n t e

, 2 5 2 Ga. Ap p

. 8 5 6, 8 6 1 (1 )

(5 5 7 SE2 d 3 99 ) (2 0 0 1 ) ( p ro v i s i o n s o f Geo rg ia Den t al A ct serv e t o “ p ro t ect [ ] t h e

h eal t h an d wel fare o f p at i en t s wh o s u b m i t t h em s el ves t o t h e care o f d en t i s t s

, by

g u ard i n g ag ai n s t i n

ju ri es cau s ed b y i n ad eq u at e care o r b y u n au t h o ri zed in d i v i d u al s ”).

c. Pr o f es s i o n a l n eg l i gen ce.

GGS arg u es i n t he al t e r n a t i v e t h at t h i s i s no t a p ro fes s i o n al neg l i g en ce cas e.

Becau s e t h i s cas e d o es n o t co n cern an ex erci se o f p ro fes s i o nal j u d gm en t an d s k i l l

req u i red fo r a cl ai m o f p ro fes s i o n al n eg l i g en ce, GGS arg ues

, J

. B. m u s t p ro ve al l t h e

el em en t s o f a cl ai m of o rd i nary n eg l i g e n c e

– i n c l ud i n g t h at Serd u l a’ s cri m es were

fo res eeab l e. Th e arg u m en t i s wi t h o u t m eri t. “ A n act io n fo r p ro fes s i o nal n eg l i g en ce

. . . ex i st s wh en t h e p l ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m ad d res s es t h e p ro pri et y o f a p ro fes s i o n al d eci s i o n

rat h er t h an t h e effi cacy o f co n d u ct i n t h e carry in g o u t o f a d eci s io n p rev i o u s l y m ad e.”

Ki n g v. Do d

g e Co u nt y Ho sp

. Au t h

. , 2 74 Ga. Ap p

. 4 4

, 4 5 -4 6 (6 1 6 SE2 d 8 3 5 ) (2 0 0 5 )

(ci t at i o n an d pu n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ). J

. B.’ s p ro fes s i o nal neg l i g en ce cl ai m s ad d res s t h e

12p ro p ri et y o f t h e p ro fes s i o n al d eci s i on s m ad e b y GGS reg ard i n g t h e t reat m en t an d care

p ro v id ed t o i t s s ed at ed pat i en t s

, an d e x p e rt ev i d en ce was s u bm i t t ed as t o t h e

p ro fes s i on al s t an d ard s t h at g ov ern ed t h es e d eci s i o n s.

3

. Evi d en t i ar y r u l in g s

.

a. Evi d en ce o f p r i or a s s a u l t s co mmi t ted

b y S er d u l a

.

GGS arg u es t h at th e t ri al co u rt erred i n p erm it t in g ev i d en ce o f o t her as s au l t s

p erp et rat ed b y Serd u la o n G GS p at i en t s b u t e x c l u d i n g ev i d en ce o f as s au l t s

p erp et rat ed b y h i m o n p at i en ts o f h eal t h -care p ro v i d ers o t h er t h a n G G S

. J

. B.

co rrect ly p o i n ts o u t

, h o wev er, t h at t h e t ri al co u rt i n i t i al l y ex cl u d ed al l ev i d en ce o f

Serd u l a’ s o t h er as s au l t s

. See O CGA § 2 4-4 -4 0 3. Sh e l at er perm it t ed t h e ev i d en ce o f

o t h er as s au l t s on GGS p at i en ts fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f i m p each m en t aft er o n e o f t h e GGS

d en ti s t s t e s t i fi ed th at G GS n ev er l eft a an es t h et i zed p at i en t w i t h fewer t h an t wo

p eo pl e i n at t en d an ce. See OCGA § 2 4-6 -6 2 1

. W e d i s cern n o ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n

. See

Ri ver s v. K-Ma r t Co rp

. , 3 2 9 G a

. Ap p

. 4 95

, 4 96 (1 ) (7 6 5 SE2 d 6 7 1) (2 0 1 4 ) (“ A s a

g en eral ru l e, ad m i s s i on o f ev id en ce i s a m at t er res t in g wi t h i n t h e s o un d d i s cret i o n o f

t h e t ri al co u rt

, an d ap pel l at e co u rt s wi l l n ot d is tu rb t h e ex erci s e o f t hat d i s cret i o n

ab s en t ev i d en ce of i t s ab us e.”) (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct uat i on o m i t ted ); Bo l ah v. Dr i s kel l

,

3 1 8 Ga. Ap p

. 4 0 5

, 4 0 7 (7 3 4 SE2 d 1 08 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (“ A t ri al co u rt , i n i t s d i s cret i o n m ay

13ad m i t ev i d en ce rel ev an t t o th e i s s u e o f i m p each m en t ev en i f t h e ev i d en ce wo u l d n ot

q u al i fy fo r ad m is s i o n o n o t her g ro u n d s

. ”) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

b

. Evi d en ce o f p h o t o g r a p h s p o s t ed

o n s oci a l med ia

.

GGS arg u es t h at t he t ri al co u rt erred i n ex cl u di n g

, o n rel ev an ce g ro u nd s

, p art s

o f an ex h i b i t co n t ai n i n g p h o t o g ra p h s t h a t J

. B. h ad p os t ed on s oci al m ed i a i n t h e

s ev eral y ears fo l l o wi ng t h e as s au l t

. Ag ai n

, we di s cern n o ab u s e o f d is cret i o n i n t h i s

ev i d en t i ary

ru l i n g . See Ri ver

s , 3 2 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 4 9 6 (1 ).

c. Reh ea r i n g

o f evi d en ce.

GGS arg ues t h at t he t ri al co u r t e r r e d wh en

, d u ri ng ju ry d el i b erat i o n s

, s h e

p erm i t t ed t h e ju ry t o reh e ar a p o rt i on of ev i d en ce set t in g fo rt h cert ai n o f GGS’ s

res p o n s es t o req u es t s fo r ad m i ss i o n b u t di d no t p erm i t th e ju ry t o reh ear a p o rt i o n o f

t h e ev i den ce co n t ai n i n g cert ai n ex pert wi t n es s t es t i m o n y

. Th e ju ry h ad as k ed to

reh ear b o t h p o rt i o n s. W h et h er t o acced e t o o r d ecl i n e t he ju ry ’ s req ues t t o reh ear p art s

o f t h e ev i d en ce was a m at t er wi t h t h e t ri al co urt ’ s d i s cret i o n

. Byr d v. S t at e

, 3 2 7 Ga.

7 8 1

, 7 8 2 -7 8 3 (1 ) (2 2 9 S E2 d 6 3 1 ) (1 9 7 6 ). A nd

, as J

. B. p o in t s ou t

, t h e fu n d am en t al

n at u re o f t h e ev i den ce at i ss u e – p art y ad m i s s i o ns v ers u s ex p ert t es t i m o n y – d i ffered

.

See g en eral l y Pi ed

m o nt Avi a t i o n v. W

a sh i n g t o n

, 18 1 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 0

, 7 3 1 ( 2 ) (3 5 3

SE2 d 8 4 7 ) (1 9 8 7) (“ A n s wers t o req u es t s fo r ad m i s s io n s are n o t o n t he s am e fo o t i n g

14i n t h e ey es o f t h e l aw wi th ot her ev i d en ce.”) (ci t at i o n an d pu n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ). W e

d i s cern no ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n i n t he t ri al co u rt ’ s deci s i o n t o perm it t he reh eari n g o f

t h e ad m i s s i o n s wh i le d en y i n g t h e reh eari n g o f t h e ex p ert t e s t im on y

. Co m p are

S cr o gg i ns v. S t at e

, 2 3 7 Ga. A p p

. 1 2 2

, 1 2 5 (5 ) ( 5 1 4 SE2 d 2 5 2) (1 9 9 9 ) (al t h o u g h

o rd i n ari ly wh et h er t ri al co u rt wi l l req u i re co u rt rep o rt er t o read fo rm er t es t i m o n y i s

m at t er res t i n g wi t h i n tri al co u rt ’ s s o u n d d is cret i o n

, t ri al co u rt n ev ert h el es s ab u s ed i t s

d i s cret i o n i n d en y i ng reh eari ng o f t es t i m o n y wh ere p ar t i e s i n p res en ce o f ju ry a

q u es ti o n a b o u t s u b s t an ce o f t h at v ery t es t i m o n y an d s eri o u s d i s ag reem en t ex i s t ed

reg ard i n g wh et h er d efen s e co u n s el h ad m i s st at ed tes t i m o n y

, wh i ch co u l d b e s et t l ed

u n eq ui v o cal l y

b y reh eari n g d i s p u t ed t es t i m o n y wh i l e cau s i n g l i t t le, i f an y

, h arm ).

4

. Ap p o r t io n men t.

a. Th e ju ry ap p o rt i on ed n o d am ag es t o Serd u l a. G GS n o w arg u es t h at

, as a

m at t er o f l aw, at l eas t s o m e o f t he d am ag es m u s t b e ap p o rt i o n ed to h im an d t h erefo re

t h at a n ew tri al i s n eces s ary

. See g en eral l y OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -3 3 (b ) & (c) (p ro v i d i n g fo r

t ri er o f fact t o co n s id er fau l t o f n o n part i es i n ap p ort i on i n g d am ag es award ).

GGS’ s arg u m en t is n o t p r o p erl y b efo re us

. GGS d o es n o t arg u e t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt erred i n an y res p ect as t o t h i s cl ai m

. In fact

, GGS d i d n o t as k t he t ri al co u rt to

g ran t a n ew t ri al o n t h i s o r an y o t h er g ro u n d

. T he reco rd s h ows t h at GGS fi rs t rai s ed

15t h e i s su e o f i t s en t i t l em en t t o a n ew tri al i n a b ri ef res p on d i n g t o J. B.’ s s u p ers ed eas

m o ti o n

, at a p o i n t i n t im e wh en t h e t ri al co u rt n o l o n g er h ad ju ri s d i ct i o n t o g ran t a

n ew t ri al b ecau s e GGS al read y h ad fi l ed i t s n o t ice of ap p eal

. A cco rd i n g l y

, GGS h as

wai v ed ap p el l a t e r e v i e w o f t h i s cl ai m

. See AKA Mg mt

. v. Br a n ch Ba n ki n g & Tr u s t

Co

. , 2 75 Ga. Ap p. 61 5, 61 9 (2 ) 9 a) (6 21 SE2 d 5 7 6 ) (2 0 0 5 ) (“ W e are l im i t ed to

co n si d eri n g o n l y t h o se g ro u n d s rai s ed an d ru l ed on b el o w b y th e t ri al co u rt an d m ay

n o t co n si d er a b a s i s f

o r ap p eal n o t pres en t ed at t h e t ri al l ev el .”) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

b

. No r s h o u l d we reach t h at arg u m en t u n d er t h e p l ai n erro r d oct ri n e. T h at

d o ct ri n e o b tai n s o nl y i f

, am o n g o t h er t h i n gs

, a ru l i n g i s n o t m erel y erro r b ut

“ o b v i o u s l y s o .” St a t e v. Kel l y

, 2 9 0 G a. 2 9

, 3 3 (2 ) (a) (7 18 SE2 d 2 3 2 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (ci t at i o n

o m it t e d )

. H e r e t h e i s s ue i s o ne o f fi rs t i m p res s i o n

. Ju d g e Ray ’ s d i s s en t ci t es t o n o

au t h o ri t y fi n d i n g th e am o un t o f d am ag es award ed b y a ju ry i n a ci v i l cas e t o b e p l ai n

erro r, an d I am aware o f n o n e. An d th e g en eral ru l e i s th at ap p o r t i o n m e nt

d et erm i n at i o n s are t h e ju ry ’ s p rero g at i v e. See S ca p a Dr yer Fa b r i cs v. Kn i

g h t

, 3 3 2 Ga.

Ap p . 8 2 , 9 0 (4 ) (7 7 0 SE2 d 3 3 4 ) (2 0 15 ).

Th e i s s u e i s n o t o n l y n o v el

. It is al s o d i ffi cu l t

. It i s d i ffi cu l t becau s e i nt en t i o n al

an d n eg l ig en t to rt s are q u al it at i v el y d is t in ct

. See El l en M

. Bu b l ick

, Th e En d Ga me of

16To r t Ref

o r m: Co mp a r a t i ve A

p p o r t i o n m en t a n d In t en t i o na l To r ts

, 7 8 No t re Dam e L.

Rev

. 3 3 5

, 3 7 6 (2 0 0 3 ). Ou r Su p rem e Co u rt h as i m p l i ed t h at i t read s t h e ap p o rt i o n m en t

s t at u te t o l eav e t h e t as k o f reco n ci l i n g t h at d i s t i n ct i on t o t h e fi n d er o f fact

. An s weri n g

i n t h e affi rm at i v e a cert i fi ed qu es t i o n wh et h er a ju ry i s “ al l o w ed t o co n s i der t he ‘ fau l t ’

o f [a] cri m i n al as s a i l a n t a n d ap p o rt i on i t s award o f d am ag es am o n g [a n eg l i g en t

t o rt feas o r] an d [a] cri m i n al as s ai l an t

, p urs u an t t o OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -3 3 ,” Co u ch v. Red

Ro o f In n s

, 2 9 1 Ga. 3 5 9, 3 5 9 (7 2 9 SE2 d 3 7 8 ) (2 0 1 2 ), t h e S u p r e m e C o u rt ad d res s ed

an d reject ed t h e p lai n t i ff’ s arg u m en t “ t hat t h e [n eg l i g en t t o rt feas o r] in t h i s cas e

can n ot es t ab li s h ev i d en ce to s u pp o rt an y rat i o n al bas i s fo r ap p ort i on m en t

. ” Id

. at 3 6 6

(2 ). “ Th at ,” th e Su p rem e Co u rt h el d

, “ i s a q u es ti o n o f fact n o t rel ev an t t o an s weri n g

t h e l eg al q u es t i o ns set fo rt h i n t h i s c as e.” Id

. (ci t at io n o m i tt ed ). Un d er t h es e

ci rcu m s t an ces

, we s h o u ld n o t deci d e t h e m eri ts o f GGS’ s ap po rt i o n m en t ch al l en ge.

Ju d g men t a f f i r med

. Ba r nes

, P. J. a n d

Ph i p p s

, P. J., co ncu r

. E l l i n gt o n

, P. J.,

co n cu r s i n t h e j u d

g men t o n l y. Di l l a r d

, Ra y, a n d McMi l l i a n , JJ., d i s s en t

.

17A1 5 A1 49 1 . GOLDSTEIN, GARBER & SALAM A, LLC v . J . B..

D I LLA R D , J u dg e, d i s s en t i n g

.

I res p ect fu ll y d i s s en t

. Th e t ri al co u rt erred i n den y i n g G GS’ s m o t i o n fo r

d i rect ed v erd i ct b ecau s e, co n t rary t o t he m ajo ri t y ’ s ho l d i n g

, J. B. co u l d n o t p ro v e

l i ab i l i t y by n eg l i g en ce p er s e o r p ro fes s i on al n eg l i g en ce fo r t he reas o n s s et fo rt h

i n f r a

.

a. Neg l i

g en ce Per

S e. I d i s ag ree t h at GGS co ul d

, u n d er t h e fact s o f t h i s cas e,

b e l i ab le fo r n eg l i gen ce p er s e b y i t s v i o l at i o n o f OCGA § 4 3 -1 1-2 1 .1

, wh i ch

reg u l at es t h e ad m i n i s t rat i o n o f deep s ed at i on an d g en e r a l a nes t h es ia. In p ert i n en t p art

,

OCGA § 4 3 -1 1 -2 1 .1 p ro h i b i t s d en t i s t s fro m “ ad m i n i st er[i n g ] g en eral an es t h es i a o n

an ou t pat i en t b as i s u n les s s u ch d en t i s t h as b een i s s u ed a p erm i t by t h e b o ard u n d er

t h e co n d i t i o n s s p eci fi ed i n th i s Co de s ect i o n .” 1

1 OCGA § 4 3 -1 1-2 1.1 (a).Perm i ts u n d er OCGA § 4 3 -1 1-2 1 .1 are o n l y i s s u e d t o a d en t is t wh o h as

“ s u cces s fu l l y co m

p let e d a m i n i m

u m o f o n e y ear o f ad v an ced t rai n i n g in

a ne sthe siology a n d r e l at ed acad em i c su b j ect s b ey o n d t h e u n derg rad u at e den t al s ch o o l

l ev el ” at s p eci fi c i n st i t ut i o n s o r wh o i s “ a d i p l o m at e o f t h e A m eri can Bo ard o f Oral

an d M ax i l l o faci al Su rg ery

, i s a m em b er o f t h e A m eri can A s s o c i at i o n o f Oral an d

M ax i l l o faci al Su rg eo n s

, o r i s a fel l o w o f th e Am eri can D en t al So ci et y o f

An es t h es i o l o gy .” 2 Ad d i t i o n al l y

, i n o rd er t o recei v e a perm i t

, t h e d en t i s t m u s t u t i l i ze

a “ p ro p erl y eq ui p p ed faci l i t y fo r t h e ad m i ni s t rat i o n of g en eral an es t hes i a, i n cl u d i n g

p h y s i cal p l an t an d eq u i p m en t wh i ch h as b een ev al u at ed an d cert i fi ed b y an o n

- s i t e

ex am i n at i o n [,] ” 3 an d h av e “ d em o n s t rat ed to t h e s a t i s f a c t i on o f t h e b o ard o r an y

d es i g n ee t h ereo f p ro fi ci en cy i n a d m i n i s t eri n g g en eral an es th es i a o n a p at i en t o r

p at i en t s i n t h e d en t i s t ’ s o ffi ce i n a s afe an d effect i v e m an n er.” 4

O C GA § 4 3 -1 1 -2 1 .1 d o es n o t “ pro h i b i t a p ers on wh o i s d u l y l i cen s ed t o

p ract i ce m ed i ci ne i n t h i s s t at e an d wh o i s a m em b er o f t h e an es th es i o l o g y s t aff o f an

i n s t i t u t i o n c l as s i fi ed as a h o s p i t al an d i s s u ed a p erm i t as an i n s ti t ut i o n u n d er Co d e

2 OCGA § 4 2 -1 1-2 1.1 (b ) (1 ) (A)-(B).

3 OCGA § 4 3 -1 1-2 1.1 (b ) (2 ).

4 OCGA § 4 3 -1 1-2 1.1 (b ) (3 ).

2Sect i o n 3 1 -7 -1 fro m ad m i n i s t eri n g g en eral an es t hes i a i n a d en t al faci l it y .” 5 N o r d o es

t h i s s tat u t o r y p r o v i s i o n p ro h i b i t l i cen s ed CRNAs

, s u ch as Serd u l a, “ fro m

ad m i n is t eri n g g en eral an es t h es i a i n a d en t al faci l it y

, p ro v i d ed t h at s u ch an es t h es i a i s

ad m i n is t ered u n d

er t he di rect io n a n d r es

po n s i b i l i t y of a d en ti s t d u l y p er m i t ted u n d er

t h i s Co d e s ect i o n . . . .” 6

Here, i t i s u nd i s p u t ed

, an d t h e m ajo ri t y co n ced es

, t hat J

. B. s u ffered n o m ed i cal

co m p l icat i o n s as a res u l t o f recei v i n g an es t h es i a at GGS. Nev ert h el es s

, t h e m ajo ri t y

accep t s J. B.’ s arg u m en t t h at D rs

. Sal am a an d Garb er di d n o t “ ap p reci at e [h er] l ev el

o f s ed at io n an d at t en d an t v u l n erab i l i t y ,” an d h o l d s th at OCGA § 43 -1 1 -2 1

. 1

“ en co m p as s es bo t h m ed ical an d n o n -m ed i cal d an g ers t h at co u l d ari s e wh ere, as h ere,

a d en ti s t i s i n cap ab l e o f ad eq u at el y s u p erv i s i n g a cert i fi ed reg i s t ered n u rs e

an es t h et i s t

, i ncl u d i ng t h e in creas ed ri s k o f a p at i en t t o ab us e wh en t h e p at i en t i s

p l aced u n d er a g reat er lev el o f s ed at i o n t han n eces sary fo r a g reat er am ou n t o f t i m e

t h an n eces s ary .” Th u s, t he m ajo ri t y h o l d s

, i n es s en ce, th at D rs

. Sal am a an d Garb er’ s

l ack o f t he n eces s ary p erm i ts an d t h e an es t h es i o l o g y t rai n i n g req u i red t o o b t ai n s u ch

p erm i t s res u l t ed i n Serd u l a’ s act o f s ex u al as s au l t b ecau se h e ad m i n i s t ered an es t h es i a

5 OCGA § 4 3 -1 1-2 1.1 (d ) (1 ).

6 OCGA § 4 3 -1 1-2 1.1 (d ) (2 ) (em p h as is s up p l i ed ).

3t o J

. B. wh i l e u nd er t h e di rect i o n an d res p o n si b i l i t y o f d en t is t s wh o were n ot

p erm i t t ed i n a c co rd an ce wi t h OCGA § 4 3 -1 1 -2 1

. 1

. I d i sag ree wi t h t h e m ajo ri t y ’ s

co n cl u s i o n s

.

To b eg i n wi t h

, wh en th e l aw req u i res a p ers o n t o “ p erfo rm an act fo r t h e b en efi t

o f an o t her o r t o refrai n fro m do i n g an act w h i ch m ay in ju re an o t h e r

, a l t h o u g h n o

cau s e o f act i on i s g i v en i n ex p res s t erm s

, th e i n ju red p art y m ay reco v er fo r t he b reach

o f s u ch l eg al d ut y i f h e s u ffers d am ag e t h ereb y .” 7 Bu t ev en as s u m i n g t h at a s t at u t e o r

m an d at o ry reg ul at i o n h as been v i o l at ed

, b efo re n eg l i g en ce p er s e can b e d et erm i n ed

,

a co u rt m u st co n s id er “ (1 ) wh et h er t h e i nju red pers o n fal l s wi t h in th e cl as s o f p ers o n

i t was [d es i g ned ] to p ro t ect an d (2 ) wh et h er t h e harm co m pl ai ned o f w as t h e h arm t h e

s t at u te was [d es ig n ed ] t o gu ard ag ai n s t .” 8

7 OCGA § 5 1 -1 -6

.

8 No rma n v. Jo n es La n g La s a l l e Amer i ca s

, In c.

, 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 21

, 6 2 8 (2 ) (b )

(6 2 7 SE2 d 3 8 2 ) (2 00 6) (p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d Br o wn v. Bel i nf a n t e

, 2 5 2 Ga.

Ap p

. 8 5 6

, 8 6 1 ( 1 ) ( 5 5 7 SE2 d 3 9 9 ) (2 0 0 1); s ee al s o At la n t a & W

. P. R. Co

. v.

Un d er wo o d

, 2 18 Ga. 1 9 3, 1 95 (1 ) (1 2 6 SE2 d 7 8 5 ) (1 9 6 2 ) (“ Th e co u rt i n d et erm i n i n g

wh et h er th e v i o l at i o n o f a s t at u t o ry req u i rem en t i s neg l i gen ce p er s e, as t o t he p ers o n

co m p l ai n i n g th ereo f u p o n wh i ch a cau s e o f act i o n wi ll res t

, wi l l l o o k t o t h e p art i cu l ar

s t at u te i n res p ect t o i t s pu rp o s es ; t h at i s

, t he ev i ls i t was i n t en d ed t o g u ard ag ai n s t an d

t h e p ers o n s i t was i nt en d ed t o p ro t ect .” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )).

4Here, i t i s t ru e t h at Drs

. Sal am a an d Garb er ad m i t t ed t hat t h ey were op erat i n g

i n v i o lat i o n o f OCGA § 4 3 -1 1 -2 1 .1 w h en t h ey d i d n o t p o s s es s th e req u i red p erm i t s

.

An d i t i s u n d i s pu t ed th at J

. B. fal l s wi t h i n t h e cl a s s o f p ers o n s t h e st at u t e was

d es i g n ed t o p ro t ect

. Bu t t h e h ar m s h e su ffered

— i .e.

, s ex u al as s au lt b y CRNA

Serd u l a— i s no t

t h e t y pe o f h arm

t h at t h e s t at ut e was d es i g n ed t o g u ard ag ai n s t

.

Lo o k i n g t o t h e p l ai n l an g u ag e o f OCGA § 4 3 -1 1-2 1 .1

, i t i s cl ear th at th e h arm

t h e s t at ut e i s d es i g n ed t o g u ard ag ai n s t i s n o t s ex u al as s au l t wh i l e u n d er t h e effect s

o f an es th es i a, b ut i s in s tead t h e i m p ro p er a d m i n i s t rat i on of an es t h es i a i t sel f d u e to

i n ad eq u at e t rai n in g

, l ack o f ex p eri en ce, an d / o r t h e i m p ro p er u s e o f eq ui p m en t

, wh i ch

can res ul t i n m ed i cal co m p l i c a t i o n s

. 9 A s p o i n t ed o u t b y GGS, i f th i s s t at u t e were

9 S ee Cen t r a l An es t hes ia As s o ci a t es

, P.C. v. W o r th y

, 2 54 Ga. 7 2 8

, 73 2 (2 ) (3 3 3

SE2 d 82 9 ) (1 9 8 5 ) (h o l d i ng t hat s t at u t e req ui ri ng t h at cert i fi ed n u rs e an es t h et i s t s

o p erat e u n d er t h e d i rect i o n an d res p o n s i bi l i t y o f l i ce n s e d p hy s i ci an s t rai n ed an d

ex p eri en ced i n an es t h es i a wh en ad m in i s t eri n g an es t hes i a was d es i g n ed t o p ro t ect

ag ai n s t t h e i m

p ro p er ad m i n i s t rat i o n o f an es t h es ia cau s i n g m ed i cal co m p li cat i o n s );

Cen tr a l An es t h e s i a A s s oci a t es

, P.C. v. W o rt h y

, 1 7 3 G a. Ap p

. 1 5 0, 1 5 2 (3 2 5 SE2 d

8 1 9 ) (1 9 8 4 ) (h o ld i n g t h at s t at u t e r e q u i ri n g th at cert i fi ed n u rs e an es t h et is ts o p erat e

u n d er t h e d i rect i o n an d res p o n s i b i l it y o f l i cen s ed p h y s i ci an s t rai n ed an d ex p eri en ced

i n an es t h es i a wh en ad m in i s t eri n g an es t hes i a was d es i g ned “ to p ro tect p at i en t s fro m

t h e dan g ers o f i m

p ro p erl y ad m i n i s t ered an es t h es i a b y t ho s e u n qu al i fi ed b y a l ack o f

wh at p u b l i c p o l i cy reg ard s as m i n i m u m ed u cat i o n in th e fi el d

, an d b y a l ack o f

s p e c i f i e d s u perv i s i o n ”); see al

s o Gr o o ver v. Jo h n s t o n

, 2 7 7 Ga. A p p

. 1 2

, 1 6 (1 ) (b )

(6 2 5 SE2 d 40 6 ) (2 0 05 ) (“ Co m m o n s en s e d i ct at es t h at i f an u n q u al ifi ed p ers o n s el ect s

an i m p ro per d ru g or ad m i n i s t ers an i m pro p er ty pe or am o u n t o f m ed i cat i o n

, es p eci al l y

t o a p at i en t em erg i n g f

r o m a n es t h es i a, d i s as t ro u s co n s eq uen ces

. . . are p o s s i b l e.”).

5d es i g n ed t o p ro t ect ag ai n s t sexu a l a s s au l t wh i l e u n d er t he effect s o f an es th es i a, t h ere

i s n o co ncei v ab le reas o n w h y an an es t h es i o l o g i s t wo u l d b e perm it t ed t o ad m i n i s t er

s ed at i o n wi t ho ut s u p erv i s i o n wh i l e a CRNA m ay o n l y d o s o “ u n d er t he d i rect i o n an d

res p o n s i b i l i t y o f a d en t i st ” wh o i s d u ly p erm i t t ed

. 1 0 An d wh i l e O CGA § 4 3 -1 1 -2 (e)

d ecl ares t h at “ s u ch un l i cen s ed act i v i t i es as are m en ti o n ed i n t h i s ch ap t er are a m en ace

an d a n u i s an ce d an g ero u s t o t h e p u b l ic heal t h

, s afet y

, an d wel fare,” t h i s tex t can n ot

p l au s i b l y b e i n t erp ret ed a s ev in ci n g a l eg i s l at i ve d es i g n to pro t ect p at i en t s ag ai n s t

s ex u al as s au lt wh en t h e v ery sam e t ex t ap pears i n a s t at u t e t h at ap p l i es t o b arb ers an d

co s m et o l o g i s t s

. 1 1 Acco rd i ng l y

, u n d er th e p art i cu lar fact s o f t hi s cas e, co n t rary t o t h e

m ajo ri ty ’ s h o l d i n g

, J

. B. co u l d n o t s h o w, as a m at t er o f l aw, th at GGS was l i ab l e fo r

n eg li g en ce p er s e b y

v i o l at in g OCGA § 4 3 -1 1-2 1 .1

. 1 2

Cf

. Br o wn

, 2 5 2 Ga. A p p. at 8 6 1 (1 ) (h ol d i n g t h at d en t is t’ s p ro v i s i o n o f co s m et i c

s u rg ery s erv i ces d i d n o t co ns t i t u t e t h e p ract i ce o f d e n t i s t r y an d

, as s uch

, d en t i s t

v i o l at ed s t at u te b y p erfo rm i n g s erv i ces th at ex ceed ed i t s s co p e; an d th e h arm t h at

p l ai n t i ff s u ffered

— ch ro n i c i n fect i o n

, rem ed ial co rrect i v e s u rg eri es

, s p eech

i m p ed im en t

, an d faci al as y m m et ry

— w ere t h e t y

p e o f h arm t h at s t at u t e was d es i g n ed

t o p rev en t ).

1 0 Co mp a r e OCGA § 4 3 -1 1 -2 1 .1 (d ) (1 ) wi t h OCGA § 4 3-1 1 -2 1 .1 (d ) (2 ).

1 1 S ee OCGA § 4 3 -1 1 -1 6 (p ro v i d i n g act i o n s t o e n jo i n p ract i ce b y u nl i cen s ed

o r u n reg i s t ered barb ers or co s m et o l og i st s

, an d co nt ai n i n g th e v ery s am e decl arat i o n

t h at “ th e u n l i cen s ed act i v it i es referred t o i n t h i s Co d e s ect io n are a m en ace an d a

n u i s an ce d an g ero u s t o t h e p u b l i c h eal th , s afet y , an d wel fare”).

1 2 Ev en i f J

. B. co ul d es t ab l i s h n eg l i g en ce p er s e, sh e wo u l d s t i l l n eed to

“ d em o n s trat e a cau s al co n nect i o n b et w e e n t h e n eg l i gen ce per s e an d t h e i n ju ry .”

6b

. Pr o f es s i o n a l Neg l ig en ce. Th e m aj o ri t y al s o accep t s J

. B.’ s arg u m en t t h at

GGS is l i ab l e fo r pro fes s i on al n eg li g en ce b y b reach i n g t h e s t an d ard o f care wh en i t s

s t aff d i d n o t reco g ni ze J

. B.’ s l ev el o f s ed at i o n an d l eft h er, a fem a l e pat i en t

, al o n e

u n d er s ed at i on wi t h Serd u l a, a m al e CRNA, t h ereb y p ro v i d i n g h i m wi t h t h e

o p p o rt u ni t y

t o p erp et rat e h is cri m i n al act s

. 1 3 Ag ai n , I d i s ag ree.

Neg l i g en ce i s “ n o t act i o n ab le u n l es s i t i s th e pro x i m at e cau s e o f t h e i n ju ry .” 1 4

An d p ro x i m at e cau s e is t hat w h i ch

, “ in t h e n at u ral an d co n t i n u o us s eq u en ce,

u n b ro k en b y o th er cau ses

, p ro d u ces an ev en t, an d wi t h o u t wh i ch t h e ev en t wo u l d n ot

h av e o ccu rred

. ” 1 5 Pro x i m at e cau s e act s as “ a l i m it o n l eg al l i a b i l i t y ; i t i s a p o l i cy

No r ma n

, 2 7 7 Ga. A pp

. at 62 7 (1 ) (b ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); s ee al s o W o r t h y

, 2 5 4 Ga.

at 7 3 3 (2 ) (“ Pl ai n t i ff m

u s t s t il l pro v e p ro xi m at e cau s e an d act ual d am ag e in o rd er to

reco v er o n a cau s e o f act i o n fo r “ n eg li g en ce.”

. . . [E] v en wh en neg l i g en ce p er s e h as

b een s h o w n

, p ro x i m at e cau s e m u s t s t i l l b e p ro v ed .” (ci t at i on o m i tt ed )); Hu mp h r eys

v. Ki pf mi l l er

, 2 3 7 Ga. A p p

. 5 72

, 5 7 5 (2 ) (5 15 SE2 d 87 8 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (“ Neg li gen ce p er s e

i s act i o n ab l e n eg li g en ce o n l y wh ere i t i s t h e pro x i m at e cau s e o f t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s

i n ju ri es .”). An d fo r t h e r e a s o n s d is cu s sed i nf r a

, s h e co u ld no t es t ab l i s h p ro x i m at e

cau s e.

1 3 S

ee OCGA § 5 1 -1 -2 7 (“ A p ers o n p ro fes si n g t o p ract i ce s u r g e r y o r t h e

ad m i n is t eri n g o f m ed i ci n e fo r co m pen s at io n m

u s t b ri n g t o t h e ex erci se o f h i s

p ro fes s i on a reas o n ab l e deg ree o f care an d s k il l

. A n y i n ju ry res u l t i n g fro m a wan t o f

s u ch care an d s k i l l s h al l b e a t ort fo r wh i ch a reco v ery m ay b e h ad

. ”).

1 4 Jo h n s o n v. Am. Na t ’l R ed Cr o s s

, 2 7 6 Ga. 2 7 0

, 27 3 (5 7 8 SE2 d 1 0 6 ) (2 0 0 3 )

(p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ); a cco rd Ga

. Dep t

. o f Tr a n s p

. v. Owen s

, 3 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 3

, 1 3 0

(2 ) (7 66 SE2 d 5 69 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

1 5 O wen s

, 3 3 0 Ga. A p p. at 1 3 0 (2 ) (p u n ct u at i on o m i t t ed ); s ee a l s o Co wa rt v.

W i d en er

, 2 8 7 Ga. 6 2 2

, 6 2 7 -2 8 (2 ) ( b ) ( 6 9 7 S E2 d 7 7 9 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (“ In t h e to rt co n t ex t

,

7d eci s i o n t h at

, fo r a v ari et y of reas o n s

, . . . t h e d efen d an t ’ s co n d uct an d t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s

i n ju ry are t o o rem o t e fo r t he l aw t o co u n t en an ce reco v ery .” 1 6 On e s uch reas o n can b e

t h e o ccu rren ce o f an i n t erv en i n g act t h at b reak s t h e cau s al co n n ect i o n

.

On t he i s s u e of i nt erv en i n g act s

, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f G eo rg i a h as ex p l ai n ed

t h at t h e gen eral ru l e i s t h at “ i f s u b s eq u en t l y t o an o ri g i n al w ro n g fu l act

, a new cau s e

h as in t erv en ed

, o f i ts el f s u ffi ci en t t o s t an d as th e cau s e o f t he m is fo rt u n e, th e fo rm er

m u st b e co n s i d ered as t o o r e m o t e[.] ” 1 7 Bu t i f t h e ch aract er of t h e i nt erv en i n g act i s

s u ch t h at “ it s p ro b ab l e o r n at u ral co n s eq u en ces co u l d r e as o n ab l y h av e b een

an t i ci pat ed

, ap p reh en d ed

, o r fo res een b y t h e o ri g i n al wro n g -d o er, t h e cau s al

co n nect io n i s n o t b ro ken an d t h e o ri g i n al wro n g-d o er i s re s p o n s i b l e fo r al l o f t h e

p ro x im at e cau s at i o n i n cl u d es al l o f t h e n at u ral an d p ro b ab l e co n s eq u en ces o f t h e

t o rt feas o r’ s n eg li gen ce, u n l es s t h ere i s a s u ffi ci e n t an d in d ep en d en t in terv en i n g

cau s e.”); Pa l

s gr a f v. Lo ng I

s

. R

. R

. Co

. , 2 4 8 N.Y. 3 3 9

, 3 4 4 (1 9 28 ) (“ Th e ri s k

reas on ab l y

t o b e p ercei v ed d efi n es t h e d u t y t o b e o b ey ed

, an d ri s k i m p o rt s rel at i o n;

i t i s ri s k t o an ot h er o r t o o t h ers wi t h i n t h e ran g e o f ap p reh en s i o n .” (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed )).

1 6 De l t a A i rl i n es

, In c. v. To wn s en d

, 2 7 9 Ga. 5 1 1

, 5 15 (1 ) (6 1 4 SE2 d 7 4 5 )

(2 0 0 5); a cco r d O w e n s

, 3 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 3 0 (2 ); s ee al s o OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -9

(“ Dam ag es wh i ch are th e l eg al an d n at u ral res u l t o f t h e act d o ne, t ho u g h co n t i n g en t

t o s o m e ex ten t

, are n o t t o o rem o t e t o be reco v ered

. Ho we v e r

, d a m ag es t raceab l e to

t h e act

, b u t wh i ch are n ot i t s l eg al an d n at u ral co n seq u en ce, are t o o rem o t e an d

co n ti n g en t t o b e reco vered .”).

1 7 On t a r i o S

ewi n g Ma ch

. Co

. v. Smi t h

, 2 7 5 Ga. 6 8 3

, 6 8 6 ( 2 ) (5 7 2 SE2 d 5 3 3 )

(2 0 0 2) (p u n ct u at i on om i t t ed ); a cco r d Gr a n g er v. MS T Tr a n s

p ., LLC , 3 2 9 Ga. Ap p.

2 6 8 , 2 7 0 (1 ) (7 6 4 SE2 d 8 72 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

8co n seq u en ces res u l t i n g fro m t h e i n t erv en i n g act .” 1 8 T h i s l at t er ru l e ap p l i es ev en to

i n t erv en i n g ac t s o f a cri m i nal n at u re. 1 9 Th u s

, al t h o u g h t h e g en eral ru l e i s t h at “ t h e

i n t erv en i n g cri m i n al act o f a t h i rd p ers o n wi l l i n su l at e a d efen d an t fro m l i ab i l i t y fo r

an o ri g i n al act o f neg l i g en ce,” 2 0 t h at ru l e d o es n o t ap pl y wh en i t i s al l eg ed t h at “ t h e

d efen d an t h ad reas o n t o an t ici p at e t h e cri m i n al act .” 2 1 An d h ere, co n t rary t o t h e

m ajo ri ty ’ s h o l d i n g

, Se r dula ’ s inte r ve nin g cri m i n al act o f s ex u al as s au l t co u l d n o t h av e

b een an t ici p at ed b y

GGS an d, t h u s , was n o t fo res eeab le as a m at t er o f l aw. 2 2

1 8 On t ar i o S

ewi n g M a ch

. Co

. , 2 7 5 Ga. at 6 8 6 (2 ) (p u n ct u at io n o m i tt ed ); a cco r d

Gr a ng er , 3 2 9 G a. Ap p

. at 2 7 0 (1 ).

1 9 Owen s

, 3 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 3 1 (2 ); s ee W i l l i a ms v. Gr ier

, 1 96 Ga. 3 2 7, 3 3 8 (3 )

(2 6 SE2 d 6 98 ) (1 9 4 3 ) (“ [W h en ] t h ere h a s i nt erv en ed b et ween t h e d efen d an t ’ s

n eg li g en ce an d t h e i n

ju ry an i n d ep en d en t i l l eg al act o f a t h i rd p ers o n p ro d u ci n g t h e

i n ju ry

, an d wi t ho u t wh i ch i t wo u l d n o t h av e o ccu rred

, s uch i n d ep en d en t cri m i n al act

s h o u ld be t reat ed as t he p ro xi m at e cau s e, i n s u l at in g an d ex cl u di n g t h e neg li g en ce o f

t h e defen d an t

. Bu t ev en t h i s ru l e wo ul d n o t ap p l y i f th e d e fen d an t ‘ h ad reas o n ab l e

g ro u nd s fo r ap p reh en d i n g t hat s u ch cri m in al act wo ul d b e co m m it t ed .’ ” (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed )).

2 0 Br a d l ey Ct r

. , In c. v. W

es s n er

, 2 5 0 Ga. 1 9 9, 2 02 (1 ) (2 9 6 SE2 d 6 9 3 ) (1 9 8 2 )

(p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t e d ); a cco r d At l a n t i c Co a s t Li n e R. Co

. v. Go d a r d

, 2 1 1 Ga. 3 7 3,

3 7 7 (1 ) (8 6 SE2 d 3 1 1) (1 95 5 ).

2 1 Br a d l ey Ct r

., In c.

, 2 5 0 Ga. at 2 0 2 (1 ) (p un ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d At l a n t i c

Co a s t Li n e R. Co

. , 2 1 1 Ga. at 3 7 7 (1 ).

2 2 S ee At l a n t a Ob s t et r i cs & Gyn eco l o g y G r p

., P.A. v. Co l ema n

, 26 0 Ga. 5 6 9,

5 7 0 (3 9 8 SE2 d 16 ) (1 99 0 ) ( “ [ W ] h et h er p ro x i m at e cau s e ex is t s i n a g i v en cas e is a

m i x ed qu es t i o n o f l aw an d fact

. It req u ires bo t h fact -fi nd i n g i n t he ‘ w h at h ap p en ed ’

s en s e, an d an ev al u at i on o f w h et h er t h e fact s m eas u re u p to th e l eg al s t an d ard s et by

p reced en t

. Ord i nari l y

, b o t h det er m i n a t i on s are m o s t ap p ro p ri at el y m ad e b y a ju ry

9Acco r d i n g t o t h e ex p ert t es t i m o n y at t ri al

, p at i en t s u n d er an es th es i a are

v u l nerab l e t o

, i n t er a l i a

, o b st ru ct ed ai rway s

, card i ac arres t, al lerg i c react i o n s

,

n eu ro l o g i cal ev en t s

, an d ev en d eat h

. Th u s

, acco rd i n g t o t h es e ex p ert s

, p at i en t s wh o

are un d er t h e effect s of an es t h es i a s h o u l d al way s h av e at l eas t t wo p eo p l e t rai n ed in

b as i c l i fe s u p p ort i n th e ro om wi t h t h em

. T h e ex p ert s ex p l ai n ed t h at t hi s ru l e i s in

p l ace becau s e, s ho u l d a m ed i cal em erg en cy ari s e, o ne p ers o n can b eg i n res u s ci t at i o n

effo rt s wh i l e t h e o t h er cal l s fo r h el p ; t h e ex t ra p ers o n n el as s i s t t h e p ers o n

ad m i n is t eri n g an es t h es i a, b u t al s o “ p ro t ect t h e p at i en t ” an d h el p to m ai n t ai n t h e

p at i en t ’ s ai rway ; an d th e ru l e p rev en ts d en t i s t s i n rem ot e areas fr o m at t em p t i n g to

pe r f or m pr oc e du res al o n e. Al t h o u g h J

. B. co nt en d s t h at an an es t h et i zed fem al e p atie nt

s h o u ld n ev er b e left al o n e wi th a m al e CRNA, t he t es t im o n y es t ab l i s h ed th at g en d er

i s n o t a fact o r i n t he ru l e. N ev ert h el es s

, J

. B.’ s ex p ert s o p in ed t h at GGS v i o l at ed t h e

s t an d ard o f care b y

l eav i n g J

. B. al o n e wi t h Serd u l a.

At t ri al , Drs . Sal am a an d Garb er an d m em b ers o f t h e GGS st aff w h o as s i s t ed

t h e d o ct o rs in p erfo rm i n g t h e v ari o u s ph as es of J

. B.’ s p ro ced u re al l t es t i fi ed wi th

u p o n ap pro p ri at e i n st ru ct io ns fro m t h e ju d g e. Th e d eci si o n m ay b e m ad e b y t h e t ri al

ju d g e or ap p el l at e co u rt o n l y if reas o n ab l e p ers o n s co u ld n ot d i ff e r a s t o b o t h t h e

rel ev an t fact s an d t h e ev al u at i v e ap p l i c a t i o n o f l eg al s t an dard s (s uch as t h e l eg al

co n cep t of ‘ fo res eeab i l i t y ’ ) t o t h e fact s

. In o t h er wo rd s

, al th o u g h wh at am o u n t s to

p ro x im at e cau s e i s u n d en i ab ly a ju ry q u es ti o n , i t wi l l b e d et erm i n ed b y t h e co u rt as

a m at t er o f l aw i n p l ai n an d u n d i s p u t ed cas es .” (ci t at i o n an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )).

10reg ard t o t h ei r u s u s al p ract i ces an d as t o t h e lay o u t of t h e o perat in g ro om an d o ffi ce

i n g en eral

. Th i s t es t i m o n y es t ab l i s h ed t h at t h e GGS o perat i n g ro o m i s l ocat ed i n a

b u s y po rt i o n o f t h e o ffi ce w i t h p eo p l e en t eri n g an d ex it i n g t h e ro o m at al l t i m es

, an d

t h e d o or t o t h e ro o m

i s al way s o p en wi t h p ers o n n el ro am i n g ab o u t t h e h al l way

.

Acco rd i n g t o a d en t al as s i s t an t wh o p art i ci p at ed i n J

. B.’ s s u rg ery

, wh en a

p at i en t i s “ han d ed o ff” b et ween p ro ced u res

, an as s i s tan t wi l l st ay wi t h t h e p at i en t in

t h e o p erat i n g ro o m o r i n th e g en eral s u rg ical area, bu t t h e p at i en t i s n ev er l eft al o n e

f o r m o re t h an o n e o r t wo m i n u t es

. Dr. Sal am a al s o t es ti fi ed t h at d u ri n g t h e t ran s fer

p eri o d

, an as s i s t an t m ay l eav e t he o perat i n g ro o m to ch an g e o ut t he s t eri l i zed

eq u ip m en t

, b u t t h at p ers o n n el are al way s “ in v o i ce ran ge” o f t h e s urg i cal ro o m

, t h at

as s i s tan ts n ev er l eav e t h e s u rg ical area o f t h e o ffi ce, t h at p ers o n n el are al way s i n t h e

s u rg i cal area i n t h e ev en t o f d en t al an d m ed i cal em erg en ci es

, an d t h at a pat i en t wo u ld

n ev er be l eft al o ne wi t h a CRNA fo r a n e x t e n d ed p eri o d o f ti m e. Ho wev er, Dr.

Sal am a al s o ad m i t t ed t h at t h e v i d eo s o f J

. B. ap p eared t o h av e b een reco rd ed d u ri n g

t h e t ran s i t i o n p eri o d b et w een h i s s u rg i cal p ro ced u re an d Dr. Garb er’ s co s m et i c

p ro ced ure. No t wi t h s t an d i ng t h e fo reg o i n g ci rcu m st an ces

, an d d es p i t e a d mi t t i n g t h at

t h e n at u re o f Serd ul a’ s i n t erv en in g act s is “ rel at i v el y u nco m m o n ,” t h e m ajo ri t y i s “ n ot

p ers u ad ed . . . t h at . . . GGS co ul d n o t reas o nab l y h av e fo res een t h em

. ”

11Fi rs t

, i t i s u n d ou b t ed ly tru e t h at sex u al as s au l t s in den t al o ffi ces can an d d o

o ccu r, as ev i d en ced b y t h e v i l e act s p erp et rat ed o n J

. B. b y Serd u l a. 2 3 An d o t h er

t es t i m o ny es t ab li s h ed t h at s ex u al as s au l t s an d m o les t at io n are co n s i d ered “ n ev er

ev en ts ” i n th e m ed i cal co m m u n i t y

, wh i ch are o ccu rren ces t h at are p rev en t ab l e an d

s h o u ld “ n ev er” hap p en

. 2 4 Ad d i ti o n al l y

, o n e o f J

. B.’ s ex p ert s t es ti fi ed th at wh i l e t h e

2 3 In deed

, GGS’ s o wn ex p ert t es t i f i e d t h at h e at ten d ed s ch o o l wi t h a d en t i s t

wh o w as cau g h t sex ual l y m o l es t i n g p at i en t s wh o were u n d er co n s ci o u s sed at i o n wi th

n i t ro us o x i d e.

2 4 Al t h o ug h t h ere w as ex p ert t es t i m on y t hat “ n ev er ev en t s” are “ fo res eeab l e,”

i t i s cl ear fro m t h e t es t i m o ny as a wh o l e t h at “ n ev er ev en t s ” are p o s s i b le o ccu rren ces

,

n o t t hat t h es e ev en t s are, acco r d i n g t o o rd i n ary an d u s u al ex peri en ce, p r o ba b l e

, o r

t h at t h ey h ap p en s o freq uen t l y t h at t h ey m ay b e ex pect ed t o h ap p en ag ai n s u ch t h at

t h ey are fo res eeab l e i n a l eg a l s en s e

. S ee i n f r a no t es 1 8 -2 2 & acco m

p an y i n g t ex t

. See

g en er a l l y 1 4 G A

. J U R I S

. P E R S O N A L I N J U R Y & T O R T S P r o xi ma t e Ca u s e § 2 1 : 2 3 (2 0 1 5 )

(“ To es t ab l i s h p ro x im at e c a u s e

, . . . a m ere p o s si b i l i t y o f s uch cau s at i o n i s n ot

en o ug h

, an d wh en th e m at t er rem ai ns o ne o f p u re s p ecu l at io n o r co n ject u re, o r t h e

p ro b ab i l i t i es are at b es t ev en l y b al an ced

, i t b eco m e s t h e d u t y o f t h e co urt t o g ran t

s u m m ary ju d g m en t fo r t h e d efen d an t

. In ad d i t i o n

, t h e i n j u r i es cau s ed m

u s t b e a

fo res eeab l e co n seq uen ce o f t he d efen d an t ’ s act i o n s

. Th u s

, t h ere m u st b e a d i rect

rel at i o n s h i p b et ween t h e n eg li g en ce an d t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s i n ju ry .” (fo o t n o t es o m i t t ed )).

In d eed

, t h ere was t es t i m o n y t h at “ n ev er ev en t s,” wh i ch i ncl u d e i n ci d en t s s u ch as

o p erat i n g o n t h e w ro ng b o d y p art o r leav i n g a s p o ng e i n p l ace, are “ f ores eeab l e

ev en ts

. W e d o n’t kn ow wh o a n d wh en [ si c] t h ey’r e g o i n g to ha

p p en

, b u t t h ere are

p o l i ci es an d p r o c e d u res i n p l ace t o p rev en t t h em fro m hap p en i n g.” (Em p h as i s

s u p p li ed .) Ad d i t io n al l y

, th o u g h “ fo res eeab l e” o r “ k n o w n ,” t h e t es t i m on y em p h as i zed

t h at m an y n ev er ev en t s are o m it t ed fro m s u rg i cal co n sen t fo rm s b ecau s e “ [ w] e ca n ’t

l i st ever y p o s s i b l e b a d t h i n g t h a t co ul d h ap p en

. . . . On a s u rg i cal co n s en t we t ry to

h i t

. . . co m mo n t h i n gs th a t ca n h a p p en wi t h t h at s u rg i cal p ro ced ure

. . . .” (Em p h as i s

s u p p li ed .) An d a b ro ad , g en eral s t at em en t t h at an o ccu rren ce s u ch as s ex u al as s au l t

i s a l wa ys “ fo res eeab l e” ru n s afo u l o f t h e l eg al p ri n ci p l e t h at “ [t ] h e q u es t i o n o f

p ro x im at e cau s e d

ep en d s u p o n t h e f a ct s o f ea ch p a r t i cu la r ca s e [.] ” Ja co b s v. Ta yl o r

,

12req u i rem en t f o r m o n i t o ri n g an an es t h et i zed p at i en t i s m ai nl y i nt en d ed t o ad d res s

m ed i cal em erg en ci es

, i t i s al s o “ s o m ewh at o f a s afeg u ard n ot o n l y fo r p at i en t s afet y

reas on [s ] b u t fo r

. . . p ract it i on er reas o n s ”; t h at “ [n ] o o n e wo u l d wan t to be l eft al o n e

wi t h a sed at ed p at i en t ” s o as t o p ro t ect t h ei r l i c en s e an d “ av oi d an y k i n d o f

accu s at i on s o f an y k i n d o f p ro b l e m s t h at m i g h t o ccu r”; an d t hat hav i n g two p eo p l e

i n t h e ro o m p ro t ect s ag ai n s t s ex u al as sau l t s an d cl ai m s o f s ex u al as sau l t

. An o t h er

ex p ert o p i n ed t h at Drs . Sal am a an d Garb er’ s fai lu re t o h av e t he n eces s ary p erm i t s 2 5

res u l ted i n th ei r i n ab i l i t y t o reco g n ize J

. B.’ s l ev el o f s ed at i o n an d

, t h u s, “ al l owed t h i s

ev en t t o hap pen ” d u e t o a l ack o f p ro p er p r o c e d u res an d p ro t o co l s

. Bu t GGS co u ld

o n l y b e l i ab l e fo r Serd ul a’ s cri m i n al act s i f t h os e act s were fo res eeab l e a s a ma t t e r

o f l a w

— i .e.

, i f t h ey were t h e nat u ral o r p ro b ab l e co n s eq u en ces o f l eav i n g J

. B. al o n e

wi t h Se r d u l a

, n o m at t er h o w b ri efl y

, wh i l e u n d er t h e effect s o f an es t h es i a. 2 6 An d

1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 52 0

, 5 2 6 (1 ) (c) (3 7 9 SE2 d 5 6 3 ) (1 9 8 9 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )

(em p h as i s s u pp l i ed ); a cco rd Ru s t i n St a mp & Co i n S h op

, In c. v. Ra

y Br o s

. Ro o

f i n g &

S h eet Met a l Co

, In c.

, 17 5 Ga. Ap p

. 3 0

, 3 1 (1 ) (3 3 2 SE2 d 3 4 1 ) (1 98 5 ); Va ld o s t a S t r eet

R. Co

. v. Fen n

, 1 1 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 6 (3 ) (7 5 SE 9 8 4) (1 9 1 2 ) (Sy l l ab us b y t h e Co u rt ); s ee

a l s o Co l ema n

, 2 6 0 Ga. at 5 69 (“ [P] ro x i m at e cau s e i s al way s t o b e det erm i n ed o n t h e

fact s o f each cas e up o n m i x ed co n s i d erat i o n s o f l o gi c, co m m o n s en s e, ju s t i ce, p o l i cy

an d p reced en t .” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )).

2 5 S ee d i scu ss i o n s u

p ra

.

2 6 S e e O n t a r i o S

ewi ng M a ch

. Co

. , 2 7 5 Ga. at 6 86 (2 ) (h o l d i ng t h at i f t h e

ch aract e r o f t h e i n t erv en i n g act i s “ s u ch t h at i ts p r o b a b l e o r n a t u r a l co n s eq u en ces

co u ld reas o n ab l y h av e b een an t i ci p at ed

, ap p reh en d ed

, o r f o r e s e en b y t h e o ri g i n al

wro ng -d o er, t h e cau s al co n n ect i o n i s n o t b r o k e n a n d th e o ri g in al wro n g -d o er i s

13co n trary t o t h e m ajo ri t y ’ s h o l d i n g

, t h e ev i d en ce s i m p l y d o es n o t es t ab l i sh t h at t h e

cri m i n al act s p erp et rat ed o n J

. B. b y Serd u l a were fo res ee a b l e i n th i s l eg al s en s e,

t h ereb y b reak i n g t h e cau s al co nn ect i o n an d rel i ev in g GGS o f l i ab i l it y

. 2 7

Fo res eeab l e co n s eq u en ces are “ t h o s e wh i ch are p r oba ble

, a c c or d ing to or dina

ry

an d u s u al ex p eri en ce

, o r t h o s e wh i ch

, b ecau s e t h ey hap p en s o freq u en tl y

, m ay b e

ex p ect ed t o h ap p en ag ai n .” 2 8 Th e l aw d o es no t req u i re o n e t o “ an t ici p at e o r fo res ee

res p o n s i b l e fo r al l o f t h e co n s eq u en ces res u lt i ng fro m t h e i n t erv en in g act ”

(p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )); W i ll i ams , 1 9 6 Ga. at 3 3 7 (2 ).

2 7 McAu l ey v. W

i l ls

, 2 5 1 Ga. 3

, 7 (5 ) (3 0 3 SE2 d 2 5 8 ) (1 9 8 3) (“ To h o l d t h at an

i n t erv en i n g act was n o t reas o n ab l y fo res eeab l e at t h e t i m e o f t h e d efen d an t ’ s

n e g l i g e n t c o n d u ct i s t o s ay t h at t h e d efen d an t ’ s n eg l i g en ce was n o t t h e p ro x i m at e

cau s e o f t h e p lai n t i ff’ s i n ju ry

. Al t h o ug h w h at am ou n t s t o p ro x i m at e cau s e i s

u n d en i ab l y a ju ry q u es t i o n

, i t wi l l b e d et er m i n ed b y t h e co u rt as a m at t er o f l aw in

p l ai n an d u n d i s p u t ed cas es .” (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed )); s ee a l s o Br a dl ey Ct r

., In c.

, 2 5 0 Ga.

at 2 02 (1 ) (“ Th ere are cas es

. . . i n w h i c h t h e i n t e rv en i n g cri m i n al act s m ay b e

fo res eeab l e. In s u ch cas es

, t ort l i ab i l i t y i s p ro p er. Th e g en eral ru le th at t h e in terv en i n g

cri m i n al act o f a t h i rd p ers o n wi l l in s ul at e a d efen d an t fro m l i ab i l i t y fo r an o ri g i n al

act o f n eg l ig en ce d o es n o t ap p l y wh en i t i s al l eg ed t h at t h e d efen d an t h ad reas o n t o

an t i ci p at e t h e cri m i n al act .”).

2 8 S ee Med i ca l Ct r

. v. Ca ven d er

, 33 1 Ga. Ap p

. 4 6 9

, 4 7 3 (1 ) (7 7 1 SE2 d 1 5 3 )

(2 0 1 5) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ); a cco r d Br own

, 2 65 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 9 3 (1 ); s e e Th o ma s

v. Fo o d Li o n

, LLC

, 2 56 Ga. Ap p

. 8 8 0

, 88 2 (1 ) (5 7 0 S E 2 d 1 8 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (“ Th e n at u ral

an d p ro b ab l e co n s eq u e n ces are t h os e wh i ch h u m an fo res i g h t can fo res ee, b ecau s e

t h ey h ap p en s o freq u e n t l y th at t h ey m ay b e ex p ect ed t o h ap pen ag ai n .”); Mo r r i s v.

Ba xt er

, 2 2 5 G a. A p p. 1 8 6

, 1 8 7 (4 8 3 SE2 d 65 0 ) (1 9 9 7 ) (s am e); Ja co b s

, 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p.

at 5 2 6 (1 ) (c) (s am e); s ee a l s o Ci t y of Ma c o n v

. Dykes

, 1 0 3 Ga. 8 4 7 (3 1 SE 4 4 3 )

(1 8 9 8) (“ [T] h e n eg l i g e n c e o f t h e d efen d an t s was n o t t h e p ro x i m at e cau s e o f t h e

i n j u r i e s o f wh ich th e p l ai n t i ff co m p l ai n ed

. H i s i n

ju ri es were no t t h e n at u ral an d

p ro b ab l e co n s eq u en ces of s u ch n eg l i gen ce. Th e o n l y i m m ed i at e an d d i rect effect o f

t h e co n t act o f t h e wh eel s o f t h e cart w i t h t h e r ai ls of th e track was t h e n oi s e. Th i s

14an d p ro vi d e ag ai n s t t hat wh i ch i s un u s ual o r wh i ch i s on l y rem o t el y or s l i g h t l y

p ro b ab l e.” 2 9 An d t h e ab o v e-referen ced ex p ert t es t im o n y i s fo u nd ed u p o n a v ag u e an d

g en eral i zed co n cep t o f v i o l en ce t h at o n l y s u g ges t s t h e m ere p o s s ib i l i ty o f i m p ro p er

co n d u c t i f a p at i en t i s l eft al o n e wh i l e u n d er an es t h es i a, no t t h e p ro b ab i l i t y o f

i m p ro p er co n d u ct

. 3 0 If an y t h in g

, t es ti m o n y b y GGS’ s ex p ert reg ard in g a single d en t al

s ch o ol cl as s m at e wh o m o l es t ed p at i en t s d em on s t rat ed ho w i nfr eq u en t l y s u ch

i n s t an ces o ccu r. 3 1

n o i s e m ay h av e b een a n at u ral an d pro b ab l e res u l t of s u ch co n t act

, bu t i t w a s n o t

reas on ab l e an d pro bab l e t h at an o rd i n ari ly g en t l e an d ro ad wo rt h y h o rs e wo u l d h av e

b een s o f

r i g h t en ed b y i t as t o i n s tan t l y cau s e h im t o k ick

, b eco m e en t irel y

u n m an ag eab l e, an d ru n away

. Su ch a n o is e an d s u c h an ex t rem e fri g h t

, i n an

o rd i n ari ly g en t l e h o rs e, as t o cau s e hi m t o k i ck an d ru n away

, we th i n k, are n o t k n o wn

b y co m m o n ex p eri en ce t o be n a t u r a l l y an d u s u al l y i n seq u en ce; th e o n e d o es n ot

fo l l o w t h e o t her, acco rd i n g t o t h e u su al co u rs e o f ev en t s .”).

2 9 Med i ca l Ct r

. , 3 3 1 G a. Ap p

. at 4 73 (1 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco rd Do wd el l

v. W i l h el m

, 3 0 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1 0 2

, 1 0 5 (1 ) (6 9 9 SE2 d 3 0) (2 0 1 0 ) ; s ee a l s o Al l a n v.

Jef f er s o n La kes i d

e, L.P.

, 3 3 3 Ga. Ap p

. 2 2 2

, 2 2 8 (2 ) (7 7 5 SE2 d 7 6 3 ) (2 0 15 ); Ja co b s

, 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p . at 5 26 (1 ) (c); Ca mp bel l v. S

. Bel l Tel

. & Tel

. Co

. , 1 61 Ga. Ap p . 5 8 9,

5 9 0 (2 ) (2 8 8 SE2 d 9 19 ) (1 9 8 2 ).

3 0 S ee Br o wn

, 2 6 5 Ga. A p p

. at 8 9 5 (1 ) (h o l d i n g t h at as s ert i o n as t o “ co m m o n

k n o wl ed g e” reg ard i n g pro p en s i t i es fo r wo rk p l ace v i o l en ce were “ t o o vag u e an d

g en eral i zed to s u p p ort t he

. . . cl ai m o f l i ab i l i t y ,” an d t hat ex p ert t es t i m o ny t h at ev en t

was fo res eeab l e was b as ed u p o n “ g en eral i zed co ncep t s o f v i o len t react i o n s ” an d fo u r

s p eci fi c ev en t s o f wo rk

p l ace v i o l en ce).

3 1 S ee Ca ven d

er

, 3 3 1 Ga. Ap p

. at 4 7 6 (1 ) (a) ( f i n d i n g t h a t t h e o pi n i o n s o f

p l ai n t i f f’ s ex p ert i l l u s t rat ed “ t h at ev en arg u ab l y s i m i l ar act s o f v io l en ce were s o

u n u s ual

, co n t rary t o o rd i n ary ex p eri en ce, an d rare t h at n o reas o nab l e ju ry co u l d fi n d

[t he d efen d an t ] s h o u l d hav e g u ard e d ag ai n s t t h em ” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )); Br o wn

,

15Fu rt h erm o re, i t i s u n d i s pu t ed t h at Serd u l a h ad b een h ig hl y reco m m en d ed to

GGS, h ad n earl y p erfect cred en t i al s an d referen ces

, had n o kn o wn p r i o r cri m i n al

h i s t o ry

, an d d i d n o t m ak e co wo rk ers o r p at i en ts feel u nco m fo rt ab l e wh il e i n h i s

p r e s en ce. Th us

, n o t h i n g m ad e i t fo res eeab l e t h at Serd u la wo ul d s ex u al ly as s au l t a

s ed at ed pat i en t if l eft al o ne wi t h h er fo r a b ri ef p e r i o d o f t i m e. 3 2 A cco rd i n g

, t h e

ev i d en ce d id n o t es tab l i s h t h at Serd ul a’ s i nt erv en i n g cri m i n al act “ co u l d reas o n ab l y

2 6 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 95 -9 6 (1 ) (h o l d in g t h at ex p ert t es t i m o n y as t o fo ur o th er i n ci d en t s

o f wo rk p l a c e viole nc e “ illustr at e[d ] v iv i d ly t hat ev en arg u ab l y s i m i l ar act s o f v i o l en ce

were s o u n u s u a l

, co n t rary to ord i nary ex p eri en ce, an d rare t h at n o reas o n ab l e ju ry

co u ld fi n d t h e [d efen dan t s ] s h o u l d h av e g u ard ed ag ai n s t t h em ”).

3 2 See Do e v. S

h a p i r o

, N o

. 27 3 9 50

, 2 0 0 8 W L 5 8 3 5 5 6, at *7 (M i ch

. Ct

. Ap p.

2 0 0 8 ) (h ol d i n g t h at p l ai n ti ff co u l d n o t es t ab l i s h n eg l i g en c e a f t e r CRNA’ s s ex u al

as s au l t wh i l e s h e was un d er effect s o f an es th es i a b ecau s e s h e fai l ed t o d em o n s t rat e

t h at d efen d an t d o ct o r an d m ed i cal cen t er “ h ad act u al o r co n s t ru ct i v e k n o wl ed g e

b ecau s e s h e p res en t ed no t es t i m o n i al o r d o cu m en t ary ev i d en ce t o i n d i cat e t h at ” t h e

d efen d an t s “ ei t h er k n ew o r s h o u l d h av e k n o wn t h at [t he CRNA] m ig h t s e x u al l y

as s au l t a p at i en t ”); N. X

. v

. Ca b r i n i Med

. Ct r

. , 28 0 AD2 d 3 4

, 3 9 (N.Y. A p p

. Di v.

2 0 0 1 ) (h o l d i n g th at “ t h e p o s s i b i l i t y th at a s u rg i cal res i d en t wi t h n o h i s t o ry o f s ex u al

m i s co n du ct wo u l d en t er a s u rg i cal reco v ery ro om an d as s au l t a p at i en t i s t o o rem o t e

t o b e co ns i d ered l eg al l y fo res eeab l e”); s ee a l s o B oo n e v. Ud

o t o , 3 2 3 Ga. Ap p . 4 8 2,

4 8 4 (1 ) (7 4 7 SE2 d 7 6 ) (2 0 1 4) (h o l d i n g t h at s h o o t i n g o f cl u b p at ro n in park i n g l o t was

u n fo res eeab l e t o cl u b o wn ers wh en t h ey h ad n o p ri or k no wl ed g e o f s h o o t er’ s

p ro p en s it i es an d n o p r ior al t ercat i o n s i nv o l vi n g g un s ). Cf

. Bu n n -Pen n v. S

. Reg ’l Med

. Co r p

. , 2 2 7 Ga. Ap p

. 2 9 1

, 2 9 4 ( 2 ) (4 8 8 SE2 d 7 4 7 ) (1 99 7 ) (h o l d i n g t h at p l ai n t i ff’ s

c l a i m f o r n eg l i g en t hi ri n g an d ret en t i o n o f t ech ni ci an wh o s ex ual l y as s au l t ed h er

fai l ed becau s e t h ere was n o ev i d en ce t o au t h o ri ze a fi nd i n g t h at t h e h o s p i t al k n ew o r

s h o u ld h av e k n o wn t h at t h e t ech n i ci an was p ro ne t o co m m i t s u ch act s).

16h av e b een an t ici p at ed

, ap p reh en d ed

, o r fo res een ” b y GGS, t hereb y b reak i n g t h e

cau s al co n n ect i o n

. 3 3

Th u s

, I d is a g r e e t h at

, as a m at t er o f l aw, sex u al as s au l t i s a reas o n ab l y

fo res eeab l e co ns eq uen ce o f l eav i n g a p at i en t al o ne fo r b ri ef p eri o d s o f t i m e wi t h a

CRNA wh o h a s n o k n o wn h i s t o ry o f s ex u al v i o l en ce o r d ev i an ce, i n an op erat i n g

ro o m l eft o p en t o an area co n t i n u o u s l y o ccu pi ed b y m u l t i p le m ed ical s t aff m em b ers

.

An d b ecau s e GGS h ad n o reas o n t o an t i ci pat e t h e cri m in al a ct

, t h e g en eral ru l e

ap p li es an d Serd u l a’ s i nt erv en i n g cri m i n al act in s u l at es GGS fro m J

. B.’ s al l eg at i on s

of l ia bi l i t y

. 3 4 M o reo v er, al t h o u g h q u es t i o n s of n eg l i g en ce, d ilige n c e

, c a use

, pr oxim a te

cau s e, an d w h o s e n eg l i g en ce co n s t i t u t ed t h e p ro x i m at e cau s e o f t h e harm s u ffered by

t h e p l ai nt i ff are gen eral l y fo r t h e ju ry

, 3 5 a tri al co u rt can “ co n cl ud e as a m at t er o f l aw

3 3 On t a r io S

ewi n g Ma ch

. Co

. , 2 7 5 Ga. at 6 8 6 (2 ) (p u n ct u at io n o m i tt ed ); a cco r d

Gr a ng er , 3 2 9 G a. Ap p

. at 2 7 0 (1 ).

3 4 Br a d l ey Ct r

., In c.

, 2 5 0 Ga. at 2 0 2 (1 ); a cco r d At l a n t i c Co a s t Li n e R. Co

. , 2 1 1

Ga. at 3 77 (1 ).

3 5 S ee Owen s

, 3 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 3 1 (2 ); see a l s o S t u r b r id

g e P a r t n er

s

, Lt d

. v.

W a l ker

, 2 6 7 Ga. 7 8 5

, 7 8 6 (4 8 2 SE2 d 3 3 9 ) (1 9 97 ) (“ [T] h e q u es ti on o f reas o n ab l e

fo res eeab i l i t y o f a cri m i nal at t ack i s g en eral l y fo r a j u ry ’ s d et erm in at i o n rat h er t h an

s u m m ary ad ju di cat i o n by t he co u rt s .” (p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed )); S t eg a l l

, 2 2 1 Ga. Ap p.

at 1 9 0 (2 ) (“ Ex cep t i n p l ai n

, p al p ab l e an d un d is p u t ed cas es wh ere reas o n ab l e m i nd s

can n ot d i ffer as t o t h e co n cl u s i o n s to b e reach ed

, q u es t i on s o f n eg l i g en ce, p ro x i m at e

cau s e, in cl u d i n g t he rel at ed is s u es o f fo res eeab i l i t y

, as s u m p ti o n o f ri s k

, l ack o f

o rd i n ary care fo r o n e’ s own s afet y

, l ack o f o rd i nary care i n av o i d i n g t h e co n s eq u en ces

o f an o th er’ s n eg li g en ce, co n t ri b u t ory an d co m p arat i ve neg l i g en ce are fo r t h e ju ry .”).

17t h at t h e fact s do o r d o n o t s h o w n eg li g en ce on t h e p art o f t h e d efen d an t o r t h e p l ai n t i ff

. . . [wh en ] t h e ev i d en ce i s p l ai n, p al p ab l e[,] an d u n d i s p u t ab l e.” 3 6 T hi s i s s u ch a p l ai n,

p al p ab l e, an d u n d i s p u tab l e cas e t h at I wo u l d h o l d t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n fai l i n g

t o g ran t GGS’ s m o t i on fo r d i rect ed v erd i ct

. 3 7

3 6 Mu n r o e v. Un i v. Hea l t h S r vs

., In c.

, 2 7 7 Ga. 8 6 1

, 8 6 4 (2 ) (5 9 6 S E 2 d 6 0 4 )

(2 0 0 4) (q u ot i n g Ro bi n s o n v. Kr o g er Co

. , 2 6 8 G a. 7 3 5

, 7 3 9 (4 9 3 SE2 d 4 0 3) (1 9 9 7 ));

s ee a l so Co l ema n

, 26 0 Ga. at 57 0 (“ [A] l th o u g h wh at am o u n ts t o pro x i m at e cau s e i s

u n d en i ab l y a j u ry q u es t i o n

, i t wi l l b e d et erm i n ed b y t h e co u rt as a m at t er o f l aw in

p l ai n an d u n d i s p u t ed cas es .” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted )); s ee a l s o Ga

. Po w e r Co

. v.

Ki n ar d

, 4 7 Ga. Ap p

. 48 3

, 4 8 6 (3 ) (1 7 0 SE 6 8 8 ) (1 9 3 3 ) (“ [W h en ] t h e ev i d en ce p l ai n l y

an d m an i fes tl y s h o w s t h at t h e i n ju ry was cau s ed b y t h e i n t erv en i n g effi ci en t act o f t h e

t h i rd p ers o n . . . , t h e d efen d an t can no t b e h el d res p o n s i b l e fo r h av i ng p ro d u ced t h e

i n ju ry

, an d t h e q u es t i o n is t hen o n e o f l aw fo r d et erm i n at i o n b y t h e co u rt

, an d n o t o n e

o f fact fo r t h e ju ry

. Th e l i ab il i ty o f t h e defen d an t i s l i m i t ed t o t h o s e co n s eq u en ces

wh i ch i t s h o u l d reas o n ab l y h av e an t i ci p at ed as t h e n at u ral an d p ro b ab l e res u l t o f i t s

o wn act o r o m i s si o n.”).

3 7 S ee S t eg a l l

, 2 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. at 19 0 (2 ) (h o l d i n g t h at s u m m ary ju d g m en t to

d efen d an t was ap pro pri at e wh en i n t erv en i ng act was n o t fo r e s eeab l e as a m at t er o f

l aw); Tu cker Fed

. S

a vi ng s & Lo a n As s ’n v. Ba l o gh

, 2 28 Ga. Ap p. 4 8 2, 48 4 (4 9 1 SE2 d

9 1 5 ) (1 9 9 7 ) (h o ld i n g t h at s u m m ary ju d gm en t s ho u l d h av e b een g ran t ed t o d efen d an t

wh en t h e h arm s u ffered b y t h e pl ai n t i ff w as t o o rem o t e t o ari se fro m an y act i o n t ak en

b y th e b an k ); S t r i ckl a n d v. D eka l b Ho s p

. Au t h

. , 1 9 7 Ga. A p p

. 6 3

, 6 7 -6 8 (2 ) (d ) (3 9 7

SE2 d 5 7 6 ) (1 9 9 0 ) (h o ld i n g t h at s u m m ary ju d g m e nt t o d efen d an t was ap p ro p ri at e

wh en i t was no t fo res eeab l e t hat ap p el l an t wo ul d l eav e h o s p i t al an d s h o o t an d k i l l h i s

wi fe aft er b ei n g l eft un at t en ded u n d er t h e effect s of v ari o u s m ed i cat i o n s ). Cf

. La n d i n g s As s ’n v. W

i l l i ams

, 2 9 1 Ga. 3 9 7

, 3 9 9 (7 28 SE2 d 57 7 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (n o t in g t h at a

“ t ri al co u rt can co n cl u d e as a m at t er o f l aw t h at t h e fact s d o o r d o n o t s h o w

n eg li g en ce o n t h e p art o f t h e d efen d an t o r th e p l ai n t i ff o n l y wh er e t h e ev id en ce i s

p l ai n

, p al p ab l e an d u n d i sp u t ab l e,” an d h o l di n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n fai l i n g to

g ran t s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o d efen d an t i n p rem i s es l i ab i l i t y cas e w h en p l ai nt i ff wh o

was fat al l y i n

ju red i n an al l i g at o r at t ack as s u m ed t h e ri s k o f i n ju ry an d fai l ed to

ex erci s e o rd i n ary care fo r h er o wn s afet y ); Co l ema n

, 2 6 0 Ga. at 5 7 0 (rev ers i n g g ran t

18In reach in g t hes e co n cl u s i o n s

, I reco gn i ze t h at t h e act s p erp et rat ed b y Serd u l a

ag ai n s t J . B. an d o t hers w ere h ei n o u s

, rep reh en s i b l e, an d i n ex cu sab l e. J . B. was t h e

v i ct i m o f o u t rag eo u s

, v i l e act s co m m i t t ed b y a m an wh o s e i m p ri so n m en t h as n o d o u bt

m ad e t h e wo rl d a s afer p l a ce. Bu t ev en i n t h e face o f ci rcu m s t an ces as h orri fi c an d

ex t rao rd i n ari ly s y m

p at h et i c as t h o s e p res en t ed i n t h i s cas e, t h i s Co urt is n ev ert h el es s

d u t y b o u nd to u p h o ld wel l -s et tl ed p ri n ci p l es of l aw. As al way s, o u r ch arg e i s t o s ee

t h at “ ju s ti ce i s fai rl y di s pen s ed t o a l l p art i es co n cern ed

, an d t h i s creat es an eq u al l y

i m p o rt an t j u d i c i a l ob l i g at i on n o t t o ren d er ju d g m en t s b o rn o n l y o f g en ero s i t y o r

co m p as s i o n .” 3 8 In s o d o i n g

, I wo u ld rev ers e.

I am au t h o ri zed to s t at e t h at J u d g e Ray an d J u d g e M c M i l l i an jo i n i n t h i s

d i s s en t

.

o f j .n .o .v

. wh en cas e “ i n v ol v e[d ] fo res eeab l e co m p l i cat i o n s rel at in g t o ab o rt i o n

p ro ced ures t hat wo u l d n ot h av e b een n eces sary i f n o t fo r [d o c t o r ’s ] n eg l i g en t

ad m i n is t rat i o n o f a h orm o n e s h o t ” an d n o t in g t h at “ [t ] h e reco rd [was ] n o t d ev o i d o f

ev i d en ce t h at [d oct o r’ s ] n eg li gen ce was t he p ro x i m at e cau s e of [ pla intif f ’ s] i nju ri es ”);

McAu l ey

, 2 5 1 Ga. at 7 (5 ) (h o l d i n g t h at

, “ as su m i n g t h at t h e [earl i er] car cras h d i d n ot

l eav e [p l ai n t iff] wh o l l y un ab l e t o g i v e b i rt h t o a ch i ld

, t h en t h e del i v ery o f t h e ch i ld

i n a m an n er i n co m

p at i b l e wi t h th e m o t h er’ s p arap l eg i a co n s t i t u t ed an i n t erv en i n g act

n o t reas o nab l y fo res eeab l e at t h e t i m e of t h e car cras h ,” an d co ncl u d in g t h at car cras h

was no t t h e p ro x i m a t e c a u s e o f ch i l d ’ s d eat h s uch t h at co m p l ai n t was p ro p erl y

d i s m i s s ed ).

3 8 S t eg a l l v. Cen t r a l Ga

. El ec. Mem

. C o r p

. , 2 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. 1 8 7, 19 0 (2 ) (4 7 0

SE2 d 7 8 2 ) (1 9 96 ); acco r d Ca r i b b ea n Lu mb er Co

. v. Ph oen i x As s u r a n ce Co

. o

f NY

, 2 2 7 Ga. Ap p . 2 3 6 , 2 3 8 (3 ) (a) (4 8 8 SE2 d 7 18 ) (1 9 9 7 ).

19A1 5 A1 49 1 . GOLDSTEIN, GARBER & SALAM A, LLC v . J

. B.

R A Y , J u d g e, d is s en t i n g

.

W h i l e I jo in i n J u d g e Di l l ard ’ s di s s en t

, I wri t e ad d i t i o n al l y t o ad d res s

Go l ds t ei n

, Gar b e r & S a l am a, L LC (“ GGS”)’ s cl ai m t h at i t i s en t i t l ed to a n ew t ri al

b ecau s e th e ju ry ’ s ap p o rt i o n m en t o f 1 0 0 p ercen t o f t h e li ab i l i ty to GGS i s ag ai n s t t h e

g reat wei g h t o f t h e ev i d en ce. Ev en i f GGS co u l d b e l i ab le o n t he g ro un d s t h at t h e

ev en t was reas o nab l y fo res eeab l e, as t h e m ajo ri t y co nt en d s, at a m i n i m u m a new t ri al

s h o u ld b e gran t ed as t h e v erd i ct as s i g n i ng 1 0 0 p ercen t o f t he fau l t to GGS i s n ot

s u p p ort ed b y

t h e ev i d en ce.

As h as b een s u ffi ci en t l y d et ai l ed by t h e m ajo ri ty

, t h i s c a s e i n v o lv es a d en t al

p ract i ce, GGS, a h ig h l y an aes t h et i zed p at i en t

, J

. B., an d a Cert ifi ed Reg i s tered Nu rs e

An es t h et i s t

, Pau l Serd u l a. Du ri n g t h e s u rg ery

, G GS l eft J

. B. al o n e wi t h Serd u l a fo r

s o m e am o u n t o f ti m e. W h i l e al o n e wi t h t he p at i en t, Serd u l a m o l es t ed J

. B. an d t o o kv i d eo s o f h er p ri v at e b o d y p art s

. J

. B. b ro u g h t s u it ag ai n s t bo t h Serd u l a an d GGS, b ut

l at er d i s m i ss ed Serd u l a fro m t h e cas e. No n et h el es s, GGS req u es t ed t hat Serd u l a b e

i n cl u d ed o n t h e v erd i ct fo r ap p o rt i o n m en t p u rp os es ; h o w ev er, aft er t he ju ry fo u n d in

fav o r o f J

. B., i t ap p o rt i o n ed 1 0 0 p ercen t o f t h e fau lt t o GGS an d n o t h i ng t o Serd u l a,

wh o h ad co m

m i t t ed t h es e v i l e act s

.

Th e m ajo ri t y fi n d s t h at t h e i s s u e o f ap p o rt io nm en t i s n o t p ro p erl y b efo re u s as

GGS d i d n o t as k fo r a n ew t ri al o n t h es e g ro u n d s

. “ [O] u r ap p el l at e co u rt s are co u rt s

fo r t he co rrect i o n o f erro rs o f l aw co m m i t ted i n th e t ri al co u rt

. Ro u t i n el y

, t h i s Co u rt

refu ses t o rev i ew i s s u es n o t rai s ed i n t h e tri al co u rt

. ” (Ci t at io n o m i t t ed .) Hea r d v.

Ci t y o f Vi l l a Ri ca

, 3 0 6 Ga. Ap p

. 2 9 1

, 2 9 3 (1 ) (7 0 1 SE2 d 9 1 5) (2 0 1 0 ). Ho wev er

, in

cri m i n al cas es

, o u r Su p rem e Co u rt h as s t at ed t h at “ ex cep t i n cas es o f p lai n erro r,

en u m erat i o n s o f erro r n ot t im el y r a i s e d a n d/ or arg u ed s h al l b e wai v ed .” (Ci t at i o n

o m it t ed .) Lyn d v. S t a t e

, 26 2 Ga. 5 8

, 6 0 -6 1 (8 ) (4 1 4 SE2 d 5 ) (1 9 9 2 ). “ Pl ai n erro r i s

t h at wh i ch i s s o cl earl y

erro n eo u s as t o res ul t i n a l ik el ih o od o f a g rav e m i s carri ag e

o f ju s t i ce o r wh ich s eri o u s l y affect s t h e fai rn es s

, i n t e g r i t y o r p u bl i c rep u t at i o n o f a

ju d i ci al p ro ceed i n g

. ” (Ci tat i o n an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t ted .) Lyn d at 6 1, n .2

. W e h av e

al s o ap pl i ed t hi s do ct ri n e i n ci v i l cas es

, st at i ng t h at u n d er “ ex cep t i o n al ci rcu m s t an ces

ap p el l at e co urt s m ay

, o n th ei r o wn m o t i o n, n ot i ce erro rs to wh i ch n o ex cep t i o n h as

2b een t ak en

, i f t h e erro rs are o b v i o u s

, o r i f t h ey o t herwi s e s eri o u sl y affect t h e fai rn es s

,

i n t eg ri t y o r p u bl i c rep u tat i o n of ju d i ci al p ro ceed i n g s .” ( C i tat i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed .) Dr u g Emp o r i u m, In c. v. Pea ks

, 2 27 Ga. Ap p . 1 2 1 , 1 2 5 (2 ) (a) (4 8 8 SE2 d

5 0 0 ) (1 9 9 7 ). Pret erm i t t i n g wh et h er t h e m ajo ri t y is co rrect t h at GGS d i d n o t rai s e t h e

ap p ort i o n m e n t is s u e wi t h th e l o wer co u rt

, t h ere are s u ffi ci en t “ ex cep t i o n al

ci rcu m s t an ces ” fo r u s t o rev i ew t h e v erd i ct i n l i g ht o f t h e ju ry ’ s fi n d i n g o f no fau l t o n

t h e p art o f Serd ul a.

Th e res po n s i bl e p art i es i n t h i s cas e were th e m o l es t er, wh o i s a n i n t en t i o n al

t o rt feas o r t h at co m

m i t t ed a s ex u al as s au l t

, an d th e d en t al p ract i ce, an al l eg ed

n eg li g en t t o rt feas o r w h ich pu t t h e m o l es t er i n t h e p o s i t i o n t o h arm t h e v i ct i m

.

Geo rg i a l aw o f co m

p arat i ve fau l t req u i res

, u p o n p ro p er req ues t

, th a t t h e fact fi n d er

al l o cat e fau l t t o al l t h o s e res p o n s ib l e fo r t h e i n j u ry

, wh et h er t h ey are li t i g an t s t o t h e

act i on o r n o t

. OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -3 3 (b ) & (c). Th i s req u i red t h e j u r y t o c o n s i d er

Serd u l a’ s fau l t i n as s es s i n g t h e l i ab i l i t y ag ai ns t GGS, ev en t h o ug h Serd ul a was n ot

t h en s t i l l n am ed as a d efen d an t

.

As t o n i s h i n g l y

, t h e ju ry fo u n d t h a t S erd u la w as n o t at fau lt at al l fo r J

. B.’ s

i n ju ri es

, as i t as s es s ed 1 0 0 p ercen t o f t he f a u l t t o GGS. Th e ev i d en ce at t ri al v ery

cl earl y s h o wed t h at Serd u l a act ed i n ten t i on al l y

. On t h ree o ccas io n s

, h e wai t ed u n t i l

3h e was al o n e in t he op erat i n g ro o m wi t h J

. B. an d u s ed h is p h o ne t o v i d eo t ap e h i m s el f

act i ng i n ap p ro p ri at el y wi t h h er, es s en t i al l y

, un co n s ci o u s b o dy

. He v i d eo t ap ed d o wn

h e r s h i rt

, rem o v ed h er un derwear an d v i d eo t ap ed h er p ri v at e area, an d vi d eo t ap e d

h i m s el f t o u ch i n g h er face an d m o u t h wi t h h i s p en i s. Th ere i s ab s o lu t el y n o q u es t i o n

t h at t h es e were in t en t i o n al act s

, b u t y et

, s o m eh o w

, t he ju ry fo u n d h i m zero p ercen t

at fau l t fo r h er i n

ju ri es

. T h i s s i t u at i o n m os t cert ai n l y p res e n t s ci rcu m s t an ces

m an d at i n g o u r co n si d erat io n o f t h e i m p ro p er v erd i ct d u e t o o b v i o u s erro r. Dr u g

Emp o r i u m, In c., su p ra. An y v erd i ct al l o wi n g t h i s in t en t i o nal t o rt feas o r t o es cap e

b l am e fo r h i s i n ten t i o n al t o rt s i m p l y can n ot s t an d

.

GGS arg u es t h at i t i s en t i t l ed t o a n ew t ri al b ecau se t h e ju ry ’ s ap p o rt i o n m en t

o f 10 0 p ercen t o f th e l i ab i li t y t o GGS i s ag ai n s t t h e g reat wei g h t o f t h e ev i d en ce. W e

h av e co n s i s t e n t ly hel d th at “ [n ] o co u rt ex cep t th e t ri al co u rt i s v es t ed wi t h t h e

au t h o ri t y t o g ran t a n ew t ri al i n a m at t er rel at i n g t o t he wei g h t of th e ev i d en ce. Th e

ap p el l at e co u rt s are n o t v es t ed wi t h d i s cret io n in t h i s reg ard as are t h e t ri al co u rt s

.

Th u s t h e o n l y q u ery

. . . i s wh et h er t h e ev i d en ce s u p po rt ed t h e v erd ict .” (Ci t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) G en er al In s

. S vcs

. v. Ma r co l a

, 2 31 Ga. Ap p

. 1 4 4 (1 4 6 ) (2 ) (b )

(4 9 7 SE2 d 6 7 9 ) (1 99 8). It i s cl ear t o m e t h at t h e ev i d en ce h ere do es n o t s u pp o rt t h e

v erd i ct

. Al t h o u gh t h e ju ry co u ld rat i o n al l y h av e ch o s en t o as s i g n a l o wer percen t ag e

4t h an 10 0 p ercen t t o Serd u la, t h e ev id en ce do es n o t s u p p o rt a fi n di n g o f zero p ercen t

fau l t

.

A fi n d i n g t h at Serd ul a was n o t at fau l t wo u ld lo g ical l y b e a fi n d in g t h at h e d id

n o t h i n g wro n g

. If h e di d n o th in g wro n g b y m o l es t i n g J. B., h o w t h e n c a n GGS b e

l i ab l e fo r n eg l i g en t l y p l aci n g h i m i n th e p o si t io n to m o l es t her? A fi n di n g o f n o fau l t

o n Serd u l a’ s p art wo u l d s eem i ng l y eq u at e t o a fi n d i n g o f n o fau l t o n GGS’ p art

.

Th e ro o t p ro b l em i n th i s cas e co m es fro m th e fact t h at Geo rg i a law al l o ws t h e

a l l o cat i o n o f fau l t b et ween an i n t en t i o n al act o r an d a n eg l i g en t act o r. Geo rg i a l aw

al l o ws t h e t ri er o f fact to as s es s p ercen t ag es of fau l t t o al l p art ies res p on s ib l e b ecau s e

o f s t r o n g p u bl ic p o l i cy ad o p t ed b y t h e leg i s l at u re t h at a p art y s h o u l d on l y be l i a b l e

fo r t h e p o rt i o n o f h arm t h at i t p ers o n al l y cau s ed

. W h en an i n ju ry can be s ai d t o h av e

b een cau s ed by m

u l t i p le act ors

, we ap p o rt i on t h e li ab i l i t y t o t h e p art ies b as ed o n t h ei r

i n d i v i d u al p o rt i o n o f fau l t i n cau s in g t he i nju ry

.

Ho wev er, wh en we are d eal i n g wi th an i n t en t i o n al t o rt feas o r an d o n e w h o i s

m erel y neg l i g en t, ap p o rt i o n m en t d o es n o t wo rk s o wel l. Co n s i der th e i nv ers e o f t h i s

cas e. W h at if J

. B. h ad s u ed GGS an d Serd u la, as sh e d i d

, b ut p ri or t o t ri al

, s h e

v o l u n t ari l y d i sm i s s ed GGS b ecau s e t h e co rp o rat io n w as b an k ru p t. Fo r t h e s ak e o f

arg u m en t

, as s um e t h at Serd u la was weal t h y an d had t h e m ean s t o pay an y ju d g m en t

.

5W o u l d w e wan t Serd u l a t o b e ab l e t o d ecreas e h i s l i ab i l i t y fo r t h e act s h e in t en t i o n al l y

p erfo rm ed b y p o i n t i n g t o GGS an d arg u i n g t h at h ad i t n o t p u t h i m i n th at p o s i t i o n

, h e

co u ld n o t h av e p erfo rm ed t h e act s ? Th e “ I d i d i t

, b ut i t is n o t fu l l y m y fau l t b ecau s e

t h ey p u t m e t h ere” d efen s e i s

, I b el i e v e

, u n co n s ci o n ab l e; y et

, o ur law en ab l es an d

em po wers s u ch a d efen s e. W e s h o u l d n o t wan t cri m i n al d efen d an t s es cap i n g c i v i l

l i ab i l i t y b ecau s e a n eg l i gen t act o r t h eo ret i cal l y al l o wed t h em t o b e i n t h at po s i t io n

. 1

In d i v i d u al s w h o co m

m it i n t en ti o n al act s s h o u l d b e h el d fu l ly res p on s ib l e fo r t h ei r

act s , b o t h i n t h e cri m i n al an d t h e ci v i l ju s t i ce s y s tem

. 2

Ou r p o l i cy of o n l y i m

p o s i n g l i ab i li t y o n th e part y w h o cau s ed t h e harm i s v ery

i m p o rt an t

. Ho wev er, th ere are o t h er way s o f i m p o s i n g l i ab il i t y on a n eg l i g en t

t o rt feas o r wh i ch o p erat e i n a cl ean er fas hi o n an d av o i d t h e s i t u at i o n wh i ch aro s e i n

t h i s cas e. 3

1 See In r e E. C.

, 4 4 4 SW 3 d 7 6 0 (Tex as Co u rt o f Ap p eal s 2 0 1 4 ) (1 6 y ear o ld

wh o k i l l ed fo u r p eo pl e wh i l e d ri v i n g d ru n k arg u ed “ affl u en za” d efen s e cl ai m i n g t h at

h e was t h e p ro d u ct o f weal t h y p ri v i l eg ed p aren t s wh o n ev er s et l im i t s fo r h i m .)

2 Fo r al tern at i v e ap p ro ach es t o av o i d t he d i l em m a t h at is p res en t i n t h i s cas e,

s ee t h e Res t at em en t T h i rd o f T o rt s

, § 1 4

, an d t h e s t at u t o ry s ch em e o f t h e S t a t e o f

Fl o ri da, Fl a. St at . § 7 6 8.8 1 (4 ).

3 See El l en M

. Bu b l ick

, Th e E n d Ga me o

f To r t Ref

or m : C o mp a r a t i ve

Ap p or t i o n men t a n d In t en t i o n al To r t s

, 7 8 N O T R E D A M E L. R E V

. 3 5 5 (2 0 0 3) (Det ai l ed

an al y s i s o f co n s eq u en ces o f i n cl u d i n g i nt en t i o n al t o rt s i n co m p arat i v e fau l t s y s t em s

,

as wel l as “ gu i d an ce fo r co u rt s an d l eg i sl at u res n av i gat i n g t h e co m p l ex t errai n o f

i n t en t i o n al an d n eg li gen t fau lt co m p ari so n s”).

6