THI RD DI VI SI ON

ELLI NGTON, P. J.

, BETHEL and GOBEI L, JJ.

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

p h 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

Septem ber 26, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A1 08 9

, A1 8A1 3 6 2

. SHANE H

. BERRYHILL et al

. v

. DALE P.

DALY et al

. ; an d v i ce v ers a.

B E T H E L , J u d g e.

Th i s ap p eal ari s es o ut o f a m ed ical m al p ract i ce act i o n rel at i n g t o Sh an e H.

Berry h i l l ’ s fal l fro m a d eer s t an d

. Fo l l owi n g a ju ry v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f Dr. Dal e P.

Dal y

, Berry h i l l fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r a n ew t ri al

, wh i ch was d en i ed

. Berry h i ll ap p eal s t h at

ru l i n g arg u i n g a n u m

ber o f erro rs p ert ai n i n g t o t h e ju ry i n s t ru ct io ns

, a p i ece o f

d em o n s t rat i v e ev i den ce, an d co m m en t s m ad e d uri n g cl o s i n g. Dr. D al y cro s s -ap p eal s

,

rai s in g t wo erro rs t hat h e s u g g es t s co u l d ari se s h o u ld th i s co u rt rev ers e an d o rd er a

ret ri al

. Fo r t h e reas o ns s et fo rt h i n f r a , we rev ers e

.

“ On ap p eal , t h e ev i d en ce i s co n s t ru ed m o s t s tro n g l y i n s u p p o rt o f t h e v erd i ct

an d j u d gm en t .” S

m i t h v. No r

f ol k S o u t h er n Ra i l wa

y Co

. , 3 3 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 0 4

, 6 0 5 (7 8 8SE2 d 5 0 8 ) (2 0 16 ) (ci tat i o n o m i t t ed ). So co n s tru ed

, t h e ev i d en ce sh o w s t h at Berry h i l l

was p res cri b ed b l o o d p res s ure m ed i cat i on b y a p h y s ici an at a l o cal care cl i n i c.

B e r r yh i l l l at er fo l l o wed u p wi t h h i s card i ol o g i s t

, Dr. Dal y

, wh o p ro v i d ed Berry h i l l

wi t h ad d i t i o n al b l o o d p res s u re m ed i cat i on

. So o n aft er, Dr. Dal y p erfo rm ed a s u rg i cal

p ro ced ure o n Berry h i l l t o ad d res s a b l o ck ed art ery

. Aft er t h e p ro ced u re, Dr. Dal y

d i s cu s s ed t he p o s t -s u rg i cal i n s t ru ct i on s wi t h Berry h i l l ’ s wi fe, in cl ud i ng t ha t B e r r y h i l l

was n o t t o en g a g e i n a n y s t ren u ou s o r ri s k y act i vi t y

, o r an y l i ft i n g, b en d i n g

, o r

s t oo p i n g o ver. Dr. Dal y an d a n u rs e l at er wen t o v er Berry hi l l ’ s p h y s i cal l i m i t at i on s

wi t h h im (i .e., t h at h e co u l d ret u rn t o wo rk i n a week b u t n o t en g ag e in an y s t ren u ou s

act i vi t y ) an d i ncl u d ed t h es e i ns t ru ct io n s i n a d i s ch arg e p ack et

.

Nev ert h el es s

, fi ve d ay s l at er Berry h i l l wen t h u nt i n g wi t h a fri en d an d cl i m b ed

u p i n t o a d eer s t an d

. U p on reach i n g th e t o p

, wh i ch was ap pro x i m at el y ei g ht een feet

o ff t h e g ro un d , Berry h i l l fai n t ed an d fel l fro m t h e s t an d, s ufferi n g s eri o u s i n ju ry

.

Berry hi ll l at er b ro u g ht s u i t ag ai n s t Dr. Dal y 1 co n t en d i ng t h a t Dr. Dal y

p res cri bed t o o m

u ch b l o o d p res s u re m ed icat i o n, w h i ch cau sed h i m t o fai n t

. Dr. Dal y

d en ied t h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s. Pri o r t o t h e s t art o f t ri al

, Dr. Dal y fi l ed t wo m ot i o n s in

1 Berry h i l l al s o b ro u g h t s ui t ag ai n s t W al g reen s p h arm acy an d th e m an u fact u rer

o f t h e d eer s tan d . Berry h i l l l at er d i s m i s s ed t h es e d efen dan t s fro m t he cas e.

2l i m i ne s eek in g t o ex cl u de t es t i m o n y f r o m Berry h i l l ’ s p h arm acy ex p ert an d to

i n t ro du ce as ad m i s s i o n s Berry h i l l ’ s al l eg at i o n s ag ai n s t th e m an u fact u rer o f t h e d eer

s t a n d

. Th e t ri al co u rt h el d th at Dr. Dal y wo u l d b e p erm i t t ed t o cro s s -ex am i n e

Berry h i l l wi t h reg ard t o t he fact u al al l eg at i o n s s et fo rt h i n t h e co m p lai n t ag ai n s t t h e

d eer s t an d m an u fact u rer, bu t ru l ed t h at th e al l eg at i o ns d i d n o t co n st it u t e ad m i s s i on s

an d t h at t h e co m

p l ai n t co u l d n ot b e ad m i t t ed as ev i d en ce. Th e t ri al co u rt al s o g ran t ed

Dr. Dal y ’ s m ot i o n t o l i m i t t h e ex p ert p h arm aci st ’ s o p i n i o n t o h i s area of ex p ert i s e.

Th e cas e p ro ceed ed t o t ri al

.

At t ri al

, t h e co u rt al l o w ed t h e ju ry t o v iew a fu l l y as s em b l ed d em o n s t rat i v e d eer

s t an d s et u p o u t s i d e o n t h e co urt h o u s e g ro u n ds

, t o wh i ch Berry h il l o b j ect ed d u e t o i t s

d i s s i m i lari ti es fro m t h e on e h e act u al l y u s ed

. Aft er t he cl o s i ng o f ev i d en ce, t h e t ri al

co u r t a l s o i n s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry o n as s u m p ti o n o f t he ri s k an d av o i d an ce o f t h e

co n seq u en ces

. Fo l l o wi n g t h e t ri al

, t h e ju ry fo u nd i n fav o r of Dr. Dal y

. Berry h i l l fi l ed

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

, wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed i n a det ai l ed o rd er. T h i s ap p eal

,

an d Dr. Dal y ’ s cro s s-ap p eal , fo l l o wed

.

Ca s e No . A1 8

A1 0 8 9

1

. Berry h i l l fi rs t arg u es t h at th e t ri al co u rt erred in ch arg i n g t h e j u r y o n

as s u m pt i o n o f t h e ri s k. M o re s p eci fi cal l y

, as h e d i d at t ri al

, Berry h i l l arg u es t h at t h e

3ch arg e s h o u l d n o t h av e b een g i v en at al l

, b u t t h at i f g i ven

, i t s h ou l d h av e in cl u d ed t h e

req u i rem en t t h at t h e p lai n t i ff h av e a s u bject i v e u n d ers t an d i ng o f t h e ri s k p res en t ed

.

W e ag ree t h at th e ev i d en ce d i d n o t ju s t i fy a ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n o n as su m p t io n o f t h e ri s k.

In Geo rg i a, a d efen d an t as s ert i n g an as s u m p t i o n o f t h e ri s k d efen s e m u s t

es t ab l i sh th at th e p l ai n t i ff ( 1 ) h a d a ct u al kn o w l ed g e o f t h e d an g er; (2 )

u n d ers t o o d an d ap preci at ed t h e ri s ks as s o ci at ed wi t h s u ch d an g er; an d

(3 ) v o l un t ari l y ex p os ed h i m s el f t o t h o se ri s k s

. A ch arg e o n as s u m p t i o n

o f t h e ri sk i s a p p ro p ri at e wh ere t h ere i s ev i den ce t h at t h e p l ai n ti ff h ad

s u b ject i v e kn o wl ed g e o f t h e s p eci fi c, p art i cu l ar ri s k of harm as s o ci at ed

wi t h t he act i v i t y o r co n d i t i o n t h at p r o x i m at el y cau s es i n ju ry

, y et

p ro ceed ed an y way

.

Va u gh n v

. P r o t e c t i ve In s

. Co

. , 2 4 3 Ga. Ap p. 7 9, 8 1 (2 ) (5 32 SE2 d 1 5 9 ) (2 0 0 0 )

(cl ean ed u p ). “ Th e k n o wl ed g e req ui rem en t d o es n o t refer t o a p l a i n t i ff’ s

c o m p reh en s i on o f g en eral

, n o n -s p eci fi c ri s k s th at m i gh t b e as so ci at ed wi t h s u c h

co n di t i o n s o r act i v i t i es [,] ” b u t rat h er “ i s b as ed i n p art o n th e reas o n i n g t h at t h e

p l ai n t i ff, i n ad v an ce, h as gi ven h i s co n s en t t o rel i ev e t h e d efen d an t of an o bl i g at i o n

o f co n du ct t o ward h i m

, an d to t ak e h i s ch an ces o f i nju ry fro m a k n own ri s k ari s i n g

fro m w h a t t h e d e f

e n d an t i s t o d o o r l eav e u n d o n e.” Id

. at 8 1-8 2 (2 ) (cl ean ed u p ).

Th u s, a ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n o n as su m p ti o n o f t h e ri s k i s au t h o ri zed o n l y wh en t h e p l ai n t i ff

as s u m es a k n o wn ri sk ari s i n g fro m a defen d an t ’ s co n d u ct o r fai l u r e t o a c t

. Th e

4ev i d en ce s u p p ort in g an in st ru ct i o n o n an as su m p t i o n o f th e ri s k n eed o n l y be “ s l i g h t .”

S ee Ru s sel l v. S

u p er i o r K-9 S

vc., In c.

, 2 4 2 G a

. Ap p

. 8 9 6

, 8 9 8 (2 ) (5 3 1 SE2 d 7 7 0 )

(2 0 0 0).

Here, cl i m

b i ng i n to a d eer s t an d was n o t a ri s k as s oci at ed w it h Dr. Dal y ’ s d u t y

t o Berry h i l l

. Th u s

, i t wo u l d b e i n co rrect t o i d en ti fy t h i s ri s k (an d kn o wl ed g e t h ereo f)

as t h e ri s k ju s t i fy i n g t h e ju ry i n s t ru ct i on

. S ee Va u g h n

, 2 4 3 Ga. Ap p. at 8 1 (2 ).

Co mp a re Teems v. Ba t es

, 3 0 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 0

, 7 2 -7 3 (1 ) (6 8 4 SE2 d 6 6 2 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (h o l d i n g

t h at as s u m

p t i o n o f t h e ri s k i ns t ru ct io n was warran t ed i n cas e i n wh i ch t een ag e

p l ai n t i ff bro u g h t s u i t ag ai n s t i n d i vi d u al d ri vi n g car o n wh i ch sh e was car s u rfi n g ).

Rat h er, t h e ri s k o f s y n co p e as a s i d e effect o f t h e m ed i cat i o n was t he p art i cu l ar ri s k

i n q u es t i o n

.

Th e reco rd s u g g e s t s t h at D r. Dal y ad v is ed Berry h i l l n o t to en g ag e i n an y

s t ren uo u s act i v i t y

. Ho wev er, t h i s do es n o t es tab l i s h t h at B e r r yh i l l k n ew h e ri s k ed

l o s i n g co n s ci o u sn es s i f h e ch o s e t o d i s reg ard Dr. Dal y ’ s in s t ru ct i o n s

. N o r is t h ere an y

ev i d en ce i n t he reco rd t h at Berry h i l l k n ew t h at d i zzi nes s o r l o s s o f co ns ci o u s n es s

were p os s ib l e s i d e effect s o f h is b l o o d p res s u re m ed i cat i o n

. Th u s

, t h ere i s n o

ev i d en ce es t ab li s h i n g t h e fi rs t el em en t n eces s ary fo r an i n s t ru ct i o n o n as s u m p t i o n o f

t h e ri s k an d

, i n s h ort

, t h e req u es t ed i ns t ru ct i o n s h o u l d n o t h av e been g i v en

. See

5Hi l l ma n v. Ca r l t on Co

. , 24 0 Ga. Ap p. 4 3 2

, 43 4 ( 1 ) ( 5 2 2 S E 2 d 6 8 1 ) (1 9 9 9 )

(“ Kn o w l ed g e o f t h e r i s k is t h e wat ch wo rd o f as s u m p t i o n o f ri s k

, an d m ean s b o th

act u al an d s u b

j ect iv e k n o wl ed ge on t h e p lai n t i ff’ s p art .” (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed )); Owen s

Il li n o i s

, In c. v. Br

ys o n

, 1 3 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 8

, 7 9 (2 2 5 SE2 d 4 7 5 ) (1 9 7 6) (“ as s u m p t i o n o f

ri sk i s a m at t er o f k no wl ed g e o f t h e d a n g e r an d i n t el l i g en t acq u ies cen ce i n i t ”).

Th erefo re, t h e t ri al co urt ’ s i n s t r u ct i on t o t h e ju ry o n as s u m p t i o n o f t h e ri s k was

i m p ro p er.

Fu rt her, we can n o t s ay t h e erro r w as h arm l es s b ecau s e i t co u l d h av e co n fu s ed

t h e ju ry i n t o b el i ev i ng th at an y ri s k as s u m ed b y Berry h i l l co ul d h av e fo rm ed t h e b as i s

fo r a fi n d i n g o f n o l i ab i l i t y

. T h erefo re

, t h e ju d g m en t m u s t b e rev ers ed an d a new t ri al

h el d

. S ee Ji men ez v. Mo r

g an D ri ve Awa

y, In c.

, 23 8 Ga. Ap p

. 6 3 8

, 6 4 0 (1 ) (5 1 9 SE2 d

7 2 2 ) (1 9 9 9 ). “ As s u m i n g t he ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t h e ret ri al is th e s am e as t h at wh i ch

was ad d u ced h ere, n o ch arg e on as s u m p t i o n o f th e ri sk s h o u l d be g i ven .” Ber i n g a u s e

v. Fo gl ema n Tr u ck Li n es

, I n c

. , 2 0 0 Ga. Ap p. 8 2 2

, 82 5 (4 ) (4 0 9 SE2 d 5 2 4 ) (1 9 9 1 )

(ev i d en ce d i d n o t d em an d a verd i ct fo r t he ap p el l ees

, an d ju ry m ay h av e ret u rn ed s u ch

a v erd ict o n t h e erro n eo u s p rem i s e th at t h e d eat h res u l t ed fr o m t h e d e c e d en t ’ s o wn

v o l u n t ary as su m p t i on o f t he ri s k ).

62

. Becau s e t h e i ss ue o f wh et h er a ch arg e o n av oi dan ce of th e co n s eq u en ces i s

au t h o ri zed i n t h i s cas e i s l ik el y t o recu r o n ret ri al

, we ad d res s Berry hi l l ’ s s eco n d

en u m erat i o n o f erro r.

W e fi n d t h at t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t e rr i n p ro vi d i n g a ju ry in s t ru ct i o n o n

a v o i d an ce o f co n seq uen ces

. “ A t ri al co u rt h as a du t y t o ch arg e th e ju ry o n t h e l a w

ap p li cab l e t o i ss u es wh i ch a r e s u p p o r t ed b y t he ev i d en ce.” W a l ker v. Br u n o ’s In c.

,

2 2 8 Ga. Ap p

, 5 8 9, 5 9 1 (3 ) (4 9 2 SE2 d 3 3 6 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). Th e av oi d an ce d o ct ri n e

i s b as ed o n t h e t h e o r y t h a t “ t h e p l ai n ti ff m us t u s e o rd i n ary care t o av o i d t h e

co n seq u en ces o f t h e defen d an t ’s n e g l i g en ce wh en i t i s ap p aren t o r wh en i n t h e

ex erci s e o f o rd i nary care i t sh o ul d beco m e ap p aren t .” Ca r r a n d i v. S a nd er s

, 1 8 8 Ga.

Ap p

. 5 6 2, 5 6 3 ( 1) ( 373 S E 2 d 66 1) (1 9 8 8 ) (ci tat i o n om i t t ed ) (p h y si cal p reced en t o n l y ).

Here, t h ere i s ev i d en ce t h at Dr. Dal y ad v i s ed Berry h il l n o t t o e n g a g e i n an y

s t ren uo u s act i vi ty fo r a week fo l l o wi n g h i s su rg ery

. A s s u m in g Dr. Dal y was n eg l i g en t

i n n o t g i v in g fu rt h er d et ai l i n t h es e d is ch arg e in s t ru ct i o n s as Bery h il l arg u es o n

ap p eal , Berry h i l l u l t i m at el y d eci d ed n o t t o s eek fu rt h er cl ari fi cat i o n o r g u i dan ce o n

t h i s l i m i t at i o n b efo re cl i m b in g ap p ro x i m at el y ei g ht een feet u p i nt o a d eer s t an d ju s t

a few d ay s l at er. Th u s , i t was a q u es t i o n fo r t he ju ry wh et h er i n ex erci s i n g o rd i n ary

7care fo r h i s o w n s afet y Berry h i l l co u l d h av e av o i d ed t h e co n seq u en ces of D r. Dal y ’ s

al l eg ed n eg l i g en ce. S

ee W a l ker , 2 2 8 Ga. Ap p. at 5 9 1 (3 ).

3

. Berry hi l l arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n a l l o w i n g t h e ju ry t o v i ew an

ex em p l ar o f t h e d eer st an d fro m wh i ch h e fel l b ecau s e i t was t o o d i s s im i l ar. W e

rev i ew t h e tri al co urt ’ s d eci s i o n fo r ab u s e o f di s cret io n

. S ee McGee v. Jo n es

, 2 3 2 Ga.

Ap p . 1 , 2 (1 ) (4 9 9 SE2 d 3 9 8 ) (1 9 9 8 ). Here, n o ab u se o f d i s cret i o n ex i s ts

.

At t ri al an d o v er Berry hi l l ’ s o b ject i o n

, t h e tri al co u rt al l o wed t h e ju ry t o v i ew

a f u l l y a s s e m

b l ed d eer s t an d s et u p o u t s i d e o n co u rt h o u s e g ro u n ds

. Th e t ri al co u rt

i n s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry t h at th e d eer s t an d w as a “ d em o n s t rat i v e ex hi b i t ” t hat was “ n ot

ev i d en ce i n t h e cas e[,] ” b u t was m erel y si m i lar t o

, t h o u gh n o t ex act l y t h e s am e as

, t h e

d eer s t an d u s ed b y t h e d efen d an t

. Th e t ri al co u rt rem in d e d t h e j u r y t h at t h ey h ad

p h o t o g rap h s o f t h e act ual deer s t an d t h at were ad m it t ed i n t o ev i d en ce an d i n d i cat ed

t h at t h e ex em

p l ar d eer s tan d was n o t l ev el an d was h el d d o w n b y s an d b ag s s o t h at i t

wo u l d n o t t opple o v er wh i l e b ei ng ex am i ned

. Fu rt h er, t h e t ri al co u rt al l o wed Berry h i l l

t o b e recal l ed t o tes t ify reg ard i n g t h e di fferen ces b et ween th e ex em p l ar d eer s t an d an d

t h e o ne fro m wh i ch h e fel l

. Un d er t h es e ci rcu m st an ces

, we d o n o t fi n d t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

d eci s i o n t o ad m i t t h e d em o n s t rat i v e ev id en ce t o b e an ab us e o f d i s cret i o n

.

84

. Berry h i l l ’ s fo urt h en u m erat i o n n eed n o t b e s p eci f ic a lly a ddr e s se d as i t rel at es

t o m at t ers n o t l i k el y

t o recu r at ret ri al

.

Ca s e No . A1 8

A1 3 6 2

5

. D r. Dal y arg u es i n hi s cro s s-ap p eal th at Berry h i l l’ s ex p ert p h arm acy wi t n es s

s h o u ld h av e b een ex cl ud ed an d t h at t h e ex p ert ’ s t ri al t es ti m o ny t h at fel l o u t s i d e h i s

area of ex p ert i s e d em on s t rat es t h i s p o i n t

. “ Th e i s s u e o f t h e ad m i s s i b i li t y or ex cl u s i o n

o f ex p ert t es t i m o ny res t s i n t h e b ro ad d is cret i o n o f t he tri al co u rt

, an d co n s eq u en t l y

,

t h e t r i al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g t h ereo n can n o t be rev ers ed ab s en t an ab us e o f d i s cret i o n.

F u r t h e r

, w e r ev i ew a tri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g o n a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e fo r ab u s e o f

d i s cret i o n .” Y

a n g v. S mi t h

, 31 6 Ga. Ap p

. 4 5 8

, 4 5 9 (7 2 8 SE2 d 79 4 ) (2 0 12 ) (ci t at i on s

an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ) (p h y s i cal p reced en t o n l y ).

Her e

, t h e t ri al co u rt l i m i t ed t h e t es ti m o n y o f th e ex p ert p h arm acy wi t n es s in

b o t h i t s ord er o n t h e rel ev an t m o t i o n i n l i m i ne an d at t ri al

. M ore s p eci fi cal l y

, t h e t ri al

co u rt l i m i t ed t h e p h arm acy ex p ert ’ s t es t i m o n y t o h i s area o f ex p ert i s e ( i

. e

. , h i s

u n d ers t an d i n g o f t he b l oo d pr e ssu re m ed i cat i o n s p res cri b ed t o Berry h i l l an d t h ei r s i d e

effect s ). W h i l e Dr. D al y ci t es t o s e v e r al i n s t an ces i n w h i ch he ob ject ed t o t h e

wi t n es s ’ s t ri al t es ti m on y

, h e d o es n o t arg u e t h a t t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n gs o n an y o f

9t h es e o b

j ect i o n s was erro r. Rat h er, h e arg u es t h at t h e erro r was i n t h e t ri al c o u rt ’ s

p erm i t t in g t h e wi t n es s t o tes t ify i n t h e fi rs t i n s tan ce. W e d i s ag ree.

Hav i n g rev i ewed th e reco rd

, wh ich s h o ws t hat th e p h a r m a c y ex p ert h as

s u b s t an t i al ex p eri en ce a s a p h a r m a c i s t

, we fi n d th at t h e t ri al co u rt di d n o t ab u s e i t s

d i s cret i o n i n refu s i n g t o ex cl u d e co m p l et el y t h e ex p ert ’ s t es t i m o n y

. See As h l ey v

.

S t a t e

, 3 16 Ga. Ap p

. 28

, 3 1 (2 ) (7 28 SE2 d 7 0 6 ) (2 01 2 ) ( “ T h e req u i rem en t s fo r

q u al i fi cat i o n as an ex pert wi t n es s are m i n i m al [,] ” an d “ an ex p ert wi tn es s can ex p res s

an o p in i o n o n a m at ter wh i ch co m es wi th i n t h e p ers o n ’ s q u al i fi cat io n s

. ” (fo o t n o t e

o m it t ed )). Th i s en u m erat i o n i s wi t h o u t m eri t

.

6

. D r. Dal y n ex t ar g u es t h at t he t ri al co u rt erred b y no t al l o wi n g Dr. Dal y to

i n t ro du ce Berry h i ll ’ s al leg at i o n s ag ai n s t t h e d eer s t an d m an u fact u rer as ad m i s s i o n s

.

Th i s was n o t erro r, as t h e al l eg at i o n s in Berry h i l l’ s co m p l ai n t d o n o t a m o u n t to

ev i d en ce o f t he d eer s t an d m an u fact u rer’ s l iab i l i t y

. S ee McReyn o l d

s v. Kr eb s

, 3 0 7 Ga.

Ap p

. 3 3 0, 3 3 4 (2 ) (7 0 5 SE2 d 2 1 4 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (“ o p in i o ns an d co n cl u s i o n s i n p l ead i n g s are

n o t ad m i ss i o n s i n ju d i ci o ”). Th i s en u m erat i o n al so fai l s

.

Ju d g men t r ever sed . El li ng t o n , P. J., a n d Go b ei l , J., co n cu r

.

10