THI RD DI VI SI ON

GOBEI L,

COOM ER and HODGES, JJ.

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

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

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

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

M ar ch 13, 2019



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A1 65 6 . W A RNOCK v . SANDFORD et al

.

C O O M E R , J u d ge.

Hen ry Ed w ard San d fo rd an d h i s wi fe T i n a San d fo rd s u ed Cl i ft o n W arn o ck 1 fo r

d am ag es ari s i n g fro m a m o t o r v eh i cl e co l l i s i o n

. Fo l l o wi n g a ju ry t ri al

, t h e t ri al co u rt

en t ered j u d g m en t o n t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct i n fav o r of t h e San d fo rd s

. Mr. W arn o ck fi l ed

a m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, wh i ch w as d en i ed b y t h e t ri al c o urt

. M r. W arn o ck ap p eal s

,

co n ten d in g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt e r r ed wh en i t fai l ed to i n st ru ct t h e ju ry o n G eo rg i a’ s

i m p act ru l e an d i n st ead g av e t he p at t ern ju ry i n s tru ct i o n fo r m en tal pai n an d s u fferi n g.

Fo r t h e fo l lo wi n g reas o n s , we affi rm

.

1 Th e San d fo rd s al s o s u ed t wo ot h er defen d an t s

, bu t M r. W arn o ck was t h e o n l y

rem ai n i n g d efen dan t at t h e t i m e o f t ri al

.“ On ap p eal

, t h e ev i den ce i s co ns t ru ed m o s t st ro n g l y t o s u pp o rt th e verd i ct an d

ju d g m en t .” Ti ce v. Co l e

, 2 4 6 Ga. Ap p

. 1 35

, 1 3 5 (5 37 SE2 d 7 1 3 ) (2 0 0 0 ) (ci t at i o n

o m it t ed ). So co n s t ru ed

, t h e e vid en ce sh o w s t h at o n Sep t em b er 1 0

, 2 0 09

, M r. W arn o ck

fai l ed t o s t o p at a s t o p s i gn an d co l l i d ed w i t h M r. San d fo rd ’ s v eh i cl e. Fo l l o wi n g t h e

a cci d en t

, t h e San dfo rd s fi l ed a co m p l ai n t al l eg i n g n eg l i g en ce an d g ro s s n eg l i g en ce

ag ai n s t M r. W arn o c k

. Th e San d fo rd s ’ co m p lai n t al l eg ed t hat th e “ h o rri fi c an d

cat as t ro ph ic i n

j u r i es s u ffered by [M r.] San d fo rd an d t h e o th er d am ag es h e an d h i s

wi fe [M rs .] San d fo rd s us t ai n ed are t he di rect an d p ro xi m at e res u l t o f t h e d efen d an t s

m i s co n du ct .” M r. San d fo rd so u g ht dam ag es fo r “ cat as t ro p h i c an d p erm an en t i n ju ri es

,

t h e t erri bl e p ai n an d s u fferi n g, p h y s i cal an d m en tal

, p as t

, p res en t an d fu t ure; l o s s o f

earn i n g s an d a d i m in is h ed cap aci t y t o l ab o r an d earn m o n ey ; an d s u ch o t h er d am ag es

as are reco v erab l e un d er Geo rg i a l aw.” M rs

. San dfo rd so u gh t d am ag es fo r l o s s o f

co n so rt i u m an d l o s s o f s erv ices o f h er h us b an d

. 2 Th e co m p l ai n t d i d n o t i n cl u d e a

cl ai m fo r n eg l ig en t i n fl i ct i o n o f em o t i o n al d is t res s.

Du ri n g a ch arg e co n feren ce co n d uct ed by t h e t r i a l c o u r t p ri o r to cl o s i n g

arg u m en t s

, M r. W arn o ck req u es t ed t h e t ri al co u rt t o i n st ru ct t h e j u ry o n G eo rg i a’ s

i m p act ru l e. M r. W arn o ck ’ s p ro p o sed ch arg e p ro v i d ed as fo l l o ws :

2 M rs . San d fo rd ’ s l o s s o f co ns o rt i u m cl ai m i s n o t t h e s u b

ject o f t h i s ap p eal

.

2Pai n an d s ufferi n g in cl u d es m en t al su fferi n g

, b u t m en t al s u fferi n g i s n o t

a l eg al i tem o f d am ag e u n l es s th ere i s ph y s i cal s u fferi n g al s o

. H o wev er,

a pl ai n ti ff m ay n o t reco v er fo r em o t io n al d is tres s ari s i n g fro m a fear o f

co n t ract i n g a d i s eas e o r d ev el o p i n g a m en t al [s i c] u n ti l [h e] b eg i n s t o

m an i fes t s ym

p t o m s o f t h e d i s eas e[.] I ch arg e y o u t h at

, in o rd er fo r

Pl ai n t i ff t o reco v er fo r em o t i o n a l d i s t res s (m en t al s u fferi ng ), he m u s t

s h o w t h at h e s uffered a p h y s i cal im pact

, t h e p h y s ical i m

p act cau s ed h i s

p h y s i cal i n

ju ry

, an d t h e p h y s i cal in

ju ry cau s ed h i s m en tal s u fferi n g an d

em o t i o n al d i st res s

. In ev al u at i n g t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s pai n an d s u fferi n g

, y o u

m ay co n s id er t h e fo l l owi n g fact o rs

, i f p ro v en : i n t erferen ce wi th n o rm al

l i vi n g ; i n t erferen ce wi t h en jo y m en t o f l i fe; l o s s o f cap aci t y t o l ab o r an d

earn m o n ey ; i m

p ai rm en t o f b o d i l y h eal t h an d vi g or; fear o f ex ten t o f

i n ju ry ; s h ock of i m

p act ; act u al p a i n an d s u fferi n g

, p as t an d fu t u re;

m en t al an g u is h

, p as t an d fu tu re; an d t h e ex t en t t o wh i ch p l ai n t i ff m u s t

l i m i t act i v i t i es

.

Lee v. S t a t e Fa r m Mu t

. In s

. Co

. , 2 72 Ga. 5 8 3

, 5 8 6 (2 00 0 ) (“ [T] he

cu rren t Geo rg i a i m

p act ru l e h as t h ree el em en t s : (1 ) a ph y s i cal i m p act t o

t h e p l ai n ti ff; (2 ) t he p h y s i cal i m p act cau s es p h y s ical i n

ju ry t o th e

p l ai n t i ff; an d (3 ) t h e p hy s i cal i n ju ry t h e p l a i n t i ff cau s es t h e p l ai n t iff’ s

m en t al s u fferi n g o r em o ti o n al d i s t res s .”)

T h e t ri al co u rt den i ed t h e req u es t an d g av e t he fo l l o wi ng p at t ern j u r y

i n s t ru ct i o n fo r m en t al p ai n an d s u fferi n g :

Pai n an d s u fferi n g i n cl ud es m en t al su fferi n g

, bu t m en t al su fferi n g i s n o t

a leg al i t em o f d a m a g e u n l es s t h ere i s p h y si cal s u fferi n g al s o

. In

3ev al uat in g t h e p l ai n ti ff’ s p ai n an d s u f f e ri n g

, y o u m ay co ns i d er th e

fo l l o wi ng fact ors

, i f p ro v en : i n terferen ce wi t h n o rm al l i v i n g ;

i n t erferen ce wi t h en

jo y m en t o f l i fe; l o s s o f cap aci t y t o l ab o r an d e a r n

m o n ey ; im

p ai rm en t o f b o d il y heal t h an d vi g o r; fear o f ex t en t o f in j u ry ;

s h o ck o f i m

p a c t; act u al p ai n an d su fferi n g

, pas t an d fu t u re; m en t al

an g u i s h, p as t an d fu t ure; an d t h e ex t en t t o wh ich t h e p l ai nt i ff m u s t l i m i t

act i v i t i es

.

Su g g es t ed Pat tern J u ry In s t ru ct i o n s

, Vo l

. I: Ci vi l Cas es (2 0 1 7), § 6 6 .5 0 1 (b ). M r.

W arn o ck o b

ject ed to t h e pat t ern ju ry i n s tru ct i o n o n t h e b as i s t hat i t d i d n o t ad eq u at el y

d efi n e fo r t h e ju ry

t h e ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e i m p act ru l e.

Th e ju ry ret urn ed a verd i ct i n fav o r o f t h e San d fo rd s i n t h e t o t al am o u n t o f

$ 1 4 ,5 5 0 ,0 0 0

, w i t h 2 5% fau l t a p p o r ti o ned t o M r. San d fo rd

. Th e t o tal am o u n t o f

d am ag es i n cl u d ed $7 m il l i o n fo r p ai n an d su fferi n g (p h y s ica l a n d m en tal ) an d $ 4

m i l l io n fo r fu t u re p ai n an d s u fferi n g (p h y s i cal an d m en t al ). J u d g m en t was en t ered in

t h e po s t -ap p o rt i on ed am o u n t of $ 1 0 ,9 1 2 ,5 0 0

. M r. W arn o ck fi l ed a m o t io n fo r n ew

t ri al b as ed i n p art o n h is a rg u m en t th at th e ju ry in s t ru ct i o n o n m en t al p ai n an d

s u fferi n g was in co n s i s ten t wi t h t h e i m pact ru l e i n t hat i t d id n o t req u ire t h e ju r y to

fi nd th at M r. San d fo rd ’ s em o ti o n al d i s t res s was cau s ed b y hi s ph y s ical i nju ri es

. Th e

t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n , an d t h i s ap p eal fo l l o w ed

.

4M r. W arn o ck co n ten d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred wh en i t d ecl i n ed t o d el i v er h i s

p ro p os ed i m

p act ru l e i n s t ru ct i o n an d i n s t ead g av e t h e p at t ern i ns t ru ct i o n fo r m en t al

p a i n an d s u fferi n g

, wh i ch d i d n o t ad eq uat el y i n st ru ct t h e j u ry reg ard i n g t h e i m p act

ru l e. Sp eci fi cal l y

, h e arg u es t hat t h e p at t ern ch arg e d i d n o t en co m p as s t h e th i rd p ro n g

o f h i s p ro p o s ed ch arg e, i .e. t h at t h e ju ry co u ld award d am ag es t o M r. San d fo rd fo r

em ot i o n al di s t res s on ly t o t he ex t en t th at i t w as cau s ed b y h is act u al p h y s i cal i n ju ri es

.

In o t h er wo rd s, M r. W arn o ck co n t en d s t hat t h e i m p act ru l e req u i red t h e ju ry to

d et erm i n e wh et h er an d t o wh at ex t en t Mr. San d fo rd ’ s d ep res s io n an d p o s t -t rau m at i c

s t res s d i s o rd er are at tri b ut ab l e t o a p h y s i cal brai n i n ju ry as o p p os ed t o an em o t i o n al

react i o n t o t h e co n s eq u en ces o f h i s i n ju ri es

. Co n v ers el y

, t h e San d fo rd s co n t en d t h at

M r. W arn o ck co n fl at es “ n eg l i g en t i n fl i ct i o n o f em o t io n al d i s tres s ,” wh i ch i s l i m i t ed

as a m at t er o f l aw b y t h e i m p act ru l e, an d reco very fo r p h y si cal an d m en t al p ai n an d

s u fferi n g, t o wh i ch t h e i m pact ru l e h as n o ap p l i cat i o n

.

“ It i s wel l s et t l ed th at i n o rd er fo r a refu s al t o ch arg e t o b e erro r, t h e req u es t s

m u st b e en t i rel y co rrect an d accu rat e, an d ad ju st ed t o th e p l ead i n g s

, law, an d

ev i d en ce, an d n o t o t h erwi s e co v ered i n t h e g en eral c h a r g e .” Ben n et t v. Mo o r e

, 3 1 2

G a

. A p p

. 4 4 5

, 4 6 0 (4 ) (b ) (7 18 SE2 d 3 11 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (ci t at io n o m i t t ed ). Ou r rev i ew o f

5a ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n i s d e no v o

. Jo r d a n v. S t a t e

, 3 2 2 G a

. A p p

. 2 5 2

, 2 5 5 (4 ) (a) (7 4 4

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

“ I t i s wel l es t ab l i s h ed t h at t o reco v er fo r i n ju ri es cau s ed b y an o t h er ’s

n eg li g en ce, a p l ai n t i ff m u s t s ho w fo u r el em en t s : a d u t y

, a b re a c h o f t h at d u t y

,

cau s at i o n an d d am ag es .” Ro ya l v. Fer r el l

g a s

, In c.

, 2 5 4 Ga. Ap p

. 6 9 6

, 6 9 8 (1 ) (a) (5 6 3

SE2 d 4 5 1 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). Th e Res t at em en t o f To rt s 2 d,

§ 4 5 6 (1 9 6 5 ), p r o v i d e s : “ If t h e act o r’ s n eg l ig en t co n d u ct h as s o cau s ed an y b o d i l y

h arm t o an ot h er as t o m ak e h im l i ab l e fo r i t

, t h e act o r i s al s o s u b ject t o l i ab i l i t y fo r (a)

fri g ht

, s h o ck

, o r o th er em o t i o n al d i s t u rb an ce res ul ti n g fro m b o d i ly harm o r fro m t h e

co n du ct wh i ch cau s es i t , an d (b ) fu rt h er b o d i ly h arm res u l t i n g fro m

s u ch em o t i o n al

d i s t u rb an ce.”

“ T h e i m p act ru l e m ay b e s u m

m ari zed as fo l l o ws : ‘ In a cl ai m co n cern i n g

n e g l i g e n t co n d u ct

, a reco v ery fo r em ot i on al d i s t res s i s al l o wed o n l y wh ere t h ere i s

s o m e i m p act o n t h e p l ai n t i ff, an d t h at i m p act m u s t b e a p h y s i cal i n

ju ry .’ ” Ol i ver v.

McDa de

, 2 9 7 Ga. 6 6

, 6 7 n. 2 (7 7 2 SE2 d 7 0 1 ) (2 0 1 5) (ci t at i o n o m it t ed ). “ [T] h e

cu rren t Geo rg i a i m

p act ru le h as t h ree el em en t s : (1 ) a p h y s i cal i m p act t o t he p l ai n t i ff;

(2 ) t h e p h y s i cal i m

pact cau s es p h y s i cal i n

ju ry to th e p l ai n t i ff; an d (3 ) t h e p h y s i cal

6i n

ju ry t o t h e pl ai n t iff cau ses t he p l ai n ti ff ’s m en t al s u fferi n g o r em o t i on al d i s t res s .”

Lee v. S ta t e Fa r m Mu t

. In s . Co

., 2 7 2 Ga. 5 8 3 , 5 8 6 (I) (5 3 3 SE2 d 8 2 ) (2 0 0 0).

Th ere are th ree p o l i cy reas o n s t rad it i on al l y g i v en fo r h av i n g th e i m pact

ru l e an d den y i n g reco v ery fo r em o t i o n al d i s t res s un rel at ed t o p hy s i cal

i n ju ri es

. Fi rs t

, t here i s t h e fear[] t h at [,] ab s en t i m p act

, t here w il l b e a

fl oo d o f l i ti gat i o n o f cl ai m s fo r em o t i o n al d i s t res s

. Seco nd

, [t h ere] i s th e

co n cern fo r frau d u l en t cl ai m s. Th i rd

, th ere i s t h e p ercep t i on t hat

, ab s en t

i m p act

, t h ere wo u l d b e d i ffi cu lt y in p ro vi n g t h e c au s al co n n ect i o n

b et wee n t h e d efen d an t ’ s n eg l i g en t co n d u ct an d cl ai m ed d am ag es o f

em o t i o n al d i s t res s

.

Id

. at 5 8 7 (ci t at i on s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

Th i s Co u rt h as ex p l ai n ed t h at t h e i m p a c t r u l e d o es n o t ap p l y t o al l cl ai m s

co n cern in g n eg l i g en t co n du ct

. McCo n n el l v. Dep t

. o f La b o r

, 3 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 6 6 9

, 6 7 4

(1 ) (b ) (8 1 4 SE2 d 7 9 0 ) (2 0 1 8 ). “ To t h e co n t rary

, t h e i m p act ru l e ap p l i es s peci fi cal l y

t o cl ai m s fo r n eg l i g en t i nfl ict i o n o f em o t i o n al d is t res s.” Id

. (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). Fo r

ex am p l e, i n Co on v. Med

. Cen t er

, In c.

, 3 0 0 Ga. 7 2 2 (7 9 7 SE2 d 8 2 8 ) (2 0 1 7 ), t h e

p l ai n t i ff s o u g h t t o reco v er d am ag es fo r t h e n eg l i gen t i n fl i ct i o n o f em o t i o n al d i s t res s

a f t e r a h o s p i t al m i s h an d l ed t h e rem ai n s o f h er s t i l l b o rn b ab y

. Th e Su p rem e Co u r t

s t at ed t hat “ Geo rg i a fo ll o ws t h e p h y s i cal i m p act ru l e fo r cl ai m s of n eg li g en t i n fl i ct i o n

o f em o t i on al d i s t res s ” an d h el d t h at t h e t ri al co u rt h ad p ro p erl y g ran t e d s u m m ary

7ju d g m en t t o t h e h o s p i t al b ecau s e t h e p l ai nt i ff d i d n o t su ffer a p h y s i cal i m p act t h at

res u l ted i n p hy s ical i n

ju ry

. Id

. at 7 3 4 -7 3 5 (4 ) (ci t at io n o m i t t ed ). Si m i l arl y , i n Ha n g

v. W a g es & S o n s Fu ner al Ho me, I

n c

. , 2 6 2 Ga. Ap p

. 17 7

, 1 8 0 -1 8 2 (5 8 5 SE2 d 1 1 8 )

(2 0 0 3), w h i ch i n v ol v ed t h e p rem at u re crem at i o n o f a fam il y m em b er’ s b o dy

b efo re

h i s vi ewi n g an d fu n eral

, w e s tat ed t h at “ [a] p art y c l a i m i n g n eg l i g en t i n fl i ct i o n o f

em ot i o n al d i s tre s s m

u s t t herefo re s h o w a p h y s i cal i m p act res u l t i n g i n p h y s i cal

i n ju ry .”

Th e San d fo rd s ’ co m

p l ai nt d i d n o t i n cl u d e a cl ai m fo r n eg l ig en t i n fl i ct i o n o f

em ot i o n al d i s t res s

. In s t ead

, i t as s ert ed s t rai gh t fo rward cl ai m s o f n eg li g en ce an d g ro ss

n eg li g en ce an d al l eg ed t h at t h e i n ju ri es s u ffer e d b y M r. San dfo rd an d t h e o t h er

d am ag es h e an d h is wi fe s u s t ai n ed were “ t h e di rect an d p ro xi m at e res u l t o f t h e

d efen d an t s m i s co n d u ct .” Co n s eq u en t l y

, t h e i m p act ru l e i s n o t ap p l i cab le i n t h i s cas e.

Th u s, t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s refu s al t o ch arg e t h e ju ry o n t h e im p act ru l e was n o t erro r. Fo r

t h e s am e rea so n, M r. W arn o ck ’ s co n t en ti o n th at t h e p at t ern j u ry i n s t ru ct i o n fo r m en t al

p ai n an d s u fferi n g g i v en b y t h e t ri al co u rt is i n ad eq u at e b ecau s e i t d id n ot ad eq u at el y

i n s t ru ct t h e ju ry

reg ard i n g t h e i m

p act ru l e fai l s

.

“ [O] n ap p el l at e rev iew, ju ry ch arg es m

u s t b e read an d co n s id ered as a wh o l e

i n d et erm i n i n g wh et h er t h e ch arg e co n t ai n ed erro r.” E va n s v. Dep a r t men t o

f Tr a n sp

. ,

83 3 1 Ga. Ap p

. 3 1 3

, 32 1 (3 ) (7 71 SE2 d 2 0 ) (2 01 5 ) (ci tat i o n an d pu n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ).

In ad d i t i o n t o th e p at t ern ch arg e fo r m en t al p ai n an d s u fferi n g

, th e t ri al co u rt al s o

ch arg ed as fo l lo w s :

Th e cas e befo re y o u i s a t o rt cas e i n wh i ch t he p l ai n t i ff m u st p ro ve b y

a p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce t h at t h e neg l i g en ce o f t h e d efen d an t

, i f

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

p l ai n t i ff can reco ver d am ag es fro m a d efen d an t i n a c a s e s u ch as t h i s

,

t h ere m u s t b e i n ju ry t o t h e p l ai n t i ff res ul t i n g fro m t h e d efen d an t ’ s

n eg l ig en ce.

Th e t ri al co u rt g av e t h e fo l l o wi n g ju ry i n s tru ct i o n o n p ro x i m at e cau s e:

Pro x i m at e cau s e m ean s t h at t h e cau s e wh i ch

, i n a n at u ral an d co nt i n uo u s

s eq u en ce, p ro d u ces an ev en t

, an d wi th o ut wh i ch cau s e s u ch ev en t w o u l d

n o t h av e o ccu rred

. In o rd er t o b e a p ro xi m at e cau s e, t h e act or o m i s s i o n

co m p lai n ed of m

u s t be s u ch t h at a p e r s o n u si n g o rd i n ary care w o u l d

h av e fo res een t h at t h e ev en t

, o r s o m e s im i l ar ev en t, m i g h t reas o n ab l y

res u lt t h erefro m

. T h ere m ay b e m o re t h an o n e pro x i m at e cau se o f an

ev en t

, b ut i f an act o r o m i s s i o n o f an y p ers o n n o t a p art y t o t h e s u i t w as

t h e s o l e p ro x i m at e cau s e o f an o ccu rren ce, th en n o act o r o m is s i o n o f

an y p art y co u l d h av e b een a p ro x i m at e cau s e. W h en I u s e t h e ex p res s i o n

“ p ro x i m at e cau s e,” I m ean a cau s e t h at

, i n th e n at ural o r o rd i n ary co urs e

o f ev en t s , p ro d u ced t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s i nju ry

.

No p l ai n ti ff m ay r e c o v er fo r i n ju ri es o r d is ab i l i t i es t h at are n o t

co n n ect ed w i t h t h e act o r o m i ss i o n s of th e d efen d an t i n t h i s cas e. Th ere

9can b e n o reco v ery fo r an y i n ju ry o r d i s ab i li t y t hat was n ot p ro x i m at el y

cau s ed b y t h e i n ci d en t i n q u es t i o n

.

Th e m ere fact t h at a co l l i s i o n h ap p en ed an d t h at t h e p lai n t i ff m ay h av e

s u s t ai n ed i n

ju ri es o r d am ag es affo rd s n o bas i s fo r reco very ag ai n s t a

p art i cu l ar d efen d an t u n l es s t h e p l ai n t iff carri es t h e b u rd en o f p ro o f an d

s h o ws t h at s u ch d am ag es were p ro x i m at el y cau s ed b y t h e n eg l ig en ce o n

t h e p art o f t h e d efen d an t

.

Th e t ri al co u rt al s o i n s tru ct ed t h e ju ry as fo l l o w s :

No p l ai n ti ff m ay reco v er fo r i n ju ri es o r di s ab i l i t i es t h a t are n o t

co n n ect ed w i t h t h e act o r o m i s s i o ns o f t h e d efen d an t i n t h is cas e. Th ere

can b e n o reco very fo r a p art i cu l ar p l ai n t i ff fo r an y i n ju ry o r d i sab i l i t y

t h at was n o t p ro x i m at el y

cau s ed b y t h e i nci d en t i n q u es t i o n.

If y o u s h o u l d fi n d t h at

, at t h e t i m e o f th e i n ci d en t

, t h at th e p l ai n t iff h ad

an y p h y s i cal co n d i t i o n

, ai l m en t

, o r d is eas e t h at was b eco m i n g ap paren t

o r was d o rm an t, an d i f y o u s h o u l d fi n d t hat t h e p l ai n t i ff recei v ed an

i n ju ry as a res u l t o f th e n eg l i g en ce o f t h e d efen d an t an d t h at t h e p hy s i cal

i n ju ry res ul t ed i n an y ag g rav at i o n o f a co n d i t i o n al read y p en d in g

, t h en

t h e p l ai n t i ff co u ld reco v er d am ag es f o r a g grav at i o n o f t h e p reex i s t i n g

co n d i t i o n

.

Tak en as a wh o l e, t he ju ry ch arg e at i s s u e i n t hi s cas e was co rrect an d n o t m i s l ead i n g

an d fu l ly ap p ri sed t h e ju ry o f t h e ap p l i cab l e law. Th e t ri al co u rt s uffi ci en t l y i n s t ru ct ed

10t h e ju ry th at Mr. San dfo rd ’ s d am ag es fo r m en tal p ai n an d s ufferi n g h ad t o res u l t fro m

M r. W arn o ck ’ s n eg l i g en ce.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Go b ei l

a n d Ho d g es , JJ., co n cu r

.

11