FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, BRA NCH and BETHEL, 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 15, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 7 A2 11 9

, A1 7 A2 1 2 0. ALM ASSUD v

. M EZQUITAL; an d v ice

v ers a.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e.

Th es e ap p eal s ari s e fro m a fi n al ju d gm en t en t ered aft er a ju ry t ri al

. Becau s e t h e

t ri al co u rt erred i n fai l i n g t o i n s tru ct t h e ju ry o n a s u b s t an t i al an d v i t al is s u e p res en t ed

b y t h e p l ead i n g s an d t h e ev i d en ce

— t he d efen d a n t ’s t h eo ry t h at h i s al l eg ed

n eg li g en ce p er s e was u n k no wi n g an d u n i n t en t i o n al

— we m us t rev ers e an d rem an d

fo r a n ew t ri al

.

On Oct ob er 2 1

, 2 0 1 2

, Ab d u l m o h sen A l m as s u d an d Lu i s a M ezq ui t al were

d ri v i ng m o t o r v eh i cl es i n o p p o s i t e d i rect i o ns o n a ro ad i n Fo rs y t h Co u nt y

. As t h ey

ap p ro ach ed each o t h er, Al m as s u d ’ s jeep cro ss ed t h e cen t er l i n e an d cras h ed i n to

M ezq u it al ’ s car. M ezq ui t al s u st ai n ed s ev ere i n ju ri es t o h er h an d i n t h e co l l i s i o n

.On Au g us t 2 8

, 20 1 4

, M ezq u i t al fi l ed a l aws u it ag ai ns t Al m as s ud

, al l eg i n g,

am on g o t h er t h i n g s

, th at Al m as s u d k n o wi n g l y o p erat ed t h e jeep o n p u b l i c ro ad way s

wh i le i t was u n s afe, t h at Al m as s u d ’ s act s co n st i tu t ed neg l i g en ce p er s e, an d t h at h i s

co n du ct p ro x i m at el y cau s ed h er i n j u ri es

. Al m as s u d an s w e r e d th e co m p l ai n t

, cl ai m i n g

t h at t he s t eeri n g o f t h e v eh i cl e h ad fai l ed an d cau s ed t h e co l l i s i o n, t h at h e d i d n ot

k n o wi n g l y o p erat e t h e jeep w h i l e i t was u ns afe, an d t h at M ezq ui t al ’ s i n j u ri es were

p ro x im at el y cau s ed b y t h e n eg l ig en ce o f n o n -p art y Oh ’ s A u t o Cen t er. M ezq u i t al fi l ed

an am en d ed co m

p l ai n t, ad d i n g t h e o wn er o f Oh ’ s Au t o Cen t er as a d efen d an t

.

In t h e p art ies ’ co n s o l i d at ed p re-t ri al o rd er, M ezq u i t al ’ s ou t l i n e o f t h e cas e

co n ten d ed

, am o n g o t h er t h i n g s, t h at Al m as s u d was n eg l i g en t p er s e b ecau s e h e h ad

v i o l at ed s ev eral Geo rg i a co d e s ect i o n s co n cern i n g o p erat i n g v eh i cl es an d t h at s u ch

n eg li g en ce p er s e pro xi m at el y cau s ed her i n ju ri es

. In t h e p re-t ri al o rd er, Al m as s u d ’ s

o u t l i ne o f t h e defen s e as s ert ed t h at t h e j eep was ren dered u n c o n t ro l l ab le wh en i t s

s t eeri n g s u d d en l y an d wi t h o u t warn i n g fai l ed ; t hat th e jeep co l l i d ed wi th Mezq u i t al ’ s

v eh icl e b ecau s e Al m as s u d was u n ab l e t o st eer t h e jeep t o av o i d t h e co l l i s i o n ; t h at

ab o ut a week b efo re t h e co ll i s i o n

, O h ’s h a d i n s tal l ed a n ew st eeri n g k it o n t h e

v eh icl e; t h at A l m as s u d h ad d ri v en t h e jeep fo r ap pro x im at el y a week wi t h n o ap p aren t

2p ro b lem s ; an d t h at Oh ’ s n eg l i gen t wo rk o n t he jeep res u l t ed in t h e s t eeri ng fai l u re an d

p ro x im at el y cau s ed M ezq u it al ’ s i n ju ri es

.

Th e cas e p ro c e e d e d t o a ju ry t ri al

, at wh i ch M ezq u i t al p res en t ed ev i d en ce,

i n cl u d i n g ex p ert t es t im o ny

, s up p o rt i n g h er cl ai m s o f n eg l i g en ce an d n eg l i g en ce p er

s e ag ai n s t Al m as su d

. Al m as su d t es t i f i e d t h at t h e s t eeri n g on h i s jeep was wo rk i n g

fi ne pri o r t o th e wo rk b y O h ’ s

, t h at Oh ’ s h ad i n s tal l ed t he n ew s t eeri n g k i t s ev eral

d ay s b efo re t h e acci d en t

, an d t hat ri g h t b efo re t h e co ll i s i o n h i s v eh i cl e h ad a s t eeri n g

fai l u re. H e a l s o p res en t ed ex p ert t es t i m o n y t h at t h e s t eeri n g m ech an i s m h ad b een

i m p ro p erl y i n st al l ed an d h ad cau s ed a lo s s o f s t eeri ng co n t ro l p ri or t o t h e co l l i s i o n.

Al m as s u d ’ s wri tt en req ues t s fo r ju ry i n st ru ct io n s i n cl u d ed th e fo l l o wi n g : “ I

ch arg e y o u m em

b ers o f th e ju ry t hat fo r an o wn er o f a v eh i cl e t o be h el d l i ab l e fo r

i n ju ri e s t h at o ccu r d u e t o an u n s afe o r d efect i v e co n d i t i o n of h i s v eh i cl e[]

, t h e

p l ai n t i ff m

u s t s h o w n o t o nl y

t h at t h e v eh icl e was [b ei n g] o p erat ed w i th t h e o wn er’ s

co n sen t

, b u t t h at t h e o wn er k n ew o f i t s d efect i v e o r u n safe co n di t i o n s.” (In t ern al

q u o t at i o n m ark s om i t t ed ). A t a ju ry ch arg e co n ferenc e

, A l m as su d ’ s at to rn ey i n fo rm ed

t h e co u r t t h at t h e req u es t as w ri t t en co ul d b e m o d i fi ed

, b u t t h at t h e ju ry s h o u l d b e

i n s t ru ct ed t h at “ Al m as su d h ad to h av e k n o wl ed g e o f th e u n s afe or defect iv e co n d i t i o n

o f t h e v eh i cl e.” Al m as s u d ’ s at t o rn ey fu rt h er ex p lai n ed t hat su ch a ch arg e wo u l d t i e

3i n t o t he co u rt ’ s ch arg e t h at a v i o l at i o n o f t h e s tat u te g ov ern i n g t h e d ri v i ng o f an

u n safe or i m

p ro perl y eq u i p ped v eh i cl e i s n eg l i g en t p er s e. T h us

, co u ns el req u es t e d

a ju ry ch arg e “ [t ] h at t h ere h as t o b e s o m e k n o wl ed ge o n t he p art o f t h e d ri v er t h at h e

i s

, i n fact , o p erat i ng an u ns afe o r d efect i v e v eh i cl e.”

Th e t ri al ju dg e refu s ed t h e req ues t

, s t at i n g : “ I’ m n ot g o i n g t o g i v e t h at

. I’ m n ot

g o i n g to g i v e t h at al t erat i o n. Th e i s s u e

. . . u l ti m at el y co m es d o wn t o reas o n ab l e care.

Yo u cert ai nl y can arg u e i t, t h at h e d i d n ’ t k n o w an d h ad n o way o f k n o w i ng an d t h at

s h o u ld b ear o n h o w t h ey co n s i d er t h e verd i ct [,] b u t I’ m no t g o i n g t o ad d t h at

. I t h i n k

t h at u n n eces s ari l y

co m p li cat es i t .”

Du ri n g i t s ch arg e t o t h e ju ry

, t h e t ri al co u rt i n st ru ct ed t h e ju ry t h at M ezq u i t al

co n ten d ed t h at Al m as s u d h ad v i o l at ed cert ai n s tat u t es an d t h at “ [s ] u ch vi o l at i o n s are

cal l ed n eg l i gen ce p er s e wh i ch m ean s n eg l i g en ce as a m at t er of law.” Th e co u rt

i n s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry o n each of t h e s t at u t es i n q u es t i o n

, i ncl u d in g OCGA § 4 0 -8 -7 fo r

d ri v i ng an u ns afe veh i cl e, OCGA § 4 0 -6 -4 0 (a) fo r o p erat i n g a v eh i cl e i n t h e wro n g

l an e o f t rav el

, an d OCGA § 4 0 -6 -4 8 fo r fai l ure t o m ai n t ai n a l an e. At t h e co n cl u s i o n

o f each i n s tru ct i on o n t h e s u b st an ce o f each s t at u t e, t h e t ri al co u rt t o l d t he ju ry t h at

“ [a] v i o l at i o n o f t h i s s t at u t e i s n eg l i g en ce p er s e.”

4Th e j u ry ret u rn ed v erd i ct s award i n g M ezq u i t al s p eci al an d g en eral d am ag es

t o t al i n g m o re t han $3 0 m i l l i o n

, fi n d i n g Al m as s u d wh o l l y res p o ns i b le fo r t h e

d am ag es

, an d award i n g M ezq u i t al $ 9 3 ,8 8 4 i n at t o rn ey fees

. Th e t ri al co u rt en t ered

ju d g m en t o n t he v erd i ct s

. Th e co u r t d e n i e d Al m as s ud ’ s m ot i o n fo r a n ew t ri al an d

M ezq u it al ’ s m o ti o n s eek i n g ad d i t i o n al at t o rn ey fees b ey o n d th o s e award ed b y t h e

ju ry

. Al m as s u d ap p eal s fro m t h e d en i al o f hi s m o t i o n fo r a n ew t ri al an d M ezq u i t al

cro s s -ap p eal s , ch al l en gi n g t h e d en i al o f h er req u es t fo r ad d i ti o nal at t o rn ey fees

.

1

. Ref u s al t o ch a rg e t h e j u r

y o n Al ma s s u d ’s d

ef en se.

Al m as s u d co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n fai l i n g t o ch arg e t h e ju ry o n h i s

d efen s e t h at h e h ad n o k n o w l ed g e t h at h i s v eh i cl e was d efect i v e. W e ag ree.

“ It i s t h e du t y o f t he t ri al co u rt

, wh et h er req u es t ed o r n o t

, t o g i v e t h e ju ry

ap p ro p ri at e i n s tru ct i o n s o n ev ery s ub s tan t i al an d v i t al i s su e p res en t ed b y t h e

ev i d en ce, an d o n ev ery t h eo ry o f t h e cas e.” Mu l l i s v. Ch a ika

, 1 1 8 Ga. Ap p

. 11

, 1 8 (4 )

(1 6 2 SE2 d 4 4 8 ) (1 9 68 ) (ci t at i o ns an d p u nct u at i o n om i t t ed ). See al s o Gu r i n v. Gen er al

Mo t or s Co rp

. , 17 1 Ga. Ap p

. 1 5 9

, 1 6 0 (1 ) (3 1 8 SE2 d 8 3 0 ) (1 9 8 4 ) (“ Th e t ri al co u rt i s

o b l ig at ed to i n s t ru ct t h e ju ry o n al l t h eo ri es an d i s s u es rai s ed b y t h e part i e s a n d

s u p p ort ed b y

t h e ev i d en ce.”).

5A ch arg e o n a g iv en s u b ject i s ju st ifi ed i f t h ere i s ev en sl ig h t ev i d en ce

fro m wh i ch a ju ry co u l d in fer a co n cl u si o n reg ard i n g t h at s u bject

. A t ri al

co u rt m ay d en y a s p eci fi c req u es t t o ch arg e i f an y p o rt i o n o f t h e req u es t

i s i n ap t or i n co rrect

, b ecau s e a req u es t t o ch arg e m u st b e co rrect

, l eg al

,

ap t

, ev en p erfect

, an d p reci s el y ad j u s ted t o s o m e p ri n ci p l e i n v o l v ed i n

t h e cas e. N ev ert hel es s

, a t ri al co u rt m u s t in s t ru ct a ju ry o n t h e law as t o

ev ery co n t ro l l in g

, m at eri al

, s u b s t an t i al an d v i t al i s s ue i n t h e cas e. T he

fai l u re t o ch arg e o n a p ro p erl y as s ert ed an d l eg al l y co g n i zab l e t h eo ry o f

reco very [o r defen s e]

, wh e t h e r req u es t ed o r n o t

, o r at ten t i o n b e cal led

t o i t o r n o t , i s h arm fu l as a m at t er o f l aw.

Og l et h or p e P o wer Co r

p v. E s t at e o f Fo r r i s t er

, 3 3 2 Ga. Ap p

. 69 3

, 7 0 7 (3 ) (7 7 4 SE2 d

7 5 5 ) (2 0 1 5 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u a t i o n o m i t ted ). A cco rd Du ff i el d v. Ch ui

, 3 1 4 Ga.

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

In t h i s cas e, M ezq u i t al m ad e o u t a p ri m a faci e s h o w i ng t hat Al m as s u d ’ s

o p erat i o n o f th e v eh i cl e was n eg l i g en ce p er s e b e c a u s e it v i ol at ed at l eas t o n e s t at e

s t at u te, wh i ch “ m ean [t ] th at t h e b u rd en th en s hi ft [ed ] t o [Al m as s u d ] t o s h o w t h at t h e

v i o l at i o n was un in t en t io nal an d i n t h e ex erci s e o f ord i n ary care. Ot h erwi s e [t h e p ri m a

faci e s h o wi n g wo u ld ] be co n cl u s i v e.” W i ll i ams v. Ca lh o u n

, 1 7 5 Ga. Ap p

. 33 2

, 3 3 3

-

3 3 4 (3 3 3 SE2 d 4 0 8 ) (1 9 85 ) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). A cco rd W h o le Fo o d

s Mkt

. Gr o u

p v.

S h ep ar d

, 3 3 3 Ga. Ap p

. 1 3 7

, 1 4 0 (3 ) ( 7 7 5 SE2 d 6 1 6 ) (2 0 1 5) (“ On ce a p l ai n t i ff

es t ab l i s h es a p ri m a faci e cas e o f n eg l i g en ce p er s e, t h e ‘ b urd en t h en sh i ft s t o t h e

d efen d an t to s h o w t h at t h e v i o l at i o n was u n in t en t i o n al an d i n t h e ex erci s e o f o rd i n ary

6care.’ [Ci t .] ”); Jo h n s o n v. McAf ee

, 15 1 G a. Ap p

. 7 7 4

, 7 7 5 (2 ) (2 61 SE2 d 7 0 8) (1 9 7 9 )

(Up on s h o wi n g o f n e g l i g en ce p er s e, “ ‘ [i ] t t h en d ev o l v es u p o n th e d efen d an t to

p r o d u c e ev i d en ce i n hi s own b eh al f t o sat i sfy th e ju ry t hat t h e o perat i o n o f t h e

au t o m ob i l e was no t a v i o lat i o n o f a st at u te o r o rd in an ce b ecau se u n i n t en t i o n al an d n ot

t h e res u l t o f an y fai lu re t o ex erci s e o rd i n ary care o n h i s p art .’ [Ci t .] ”). Th u s

, i n o rd er

“ t o reb u t t h e pres u m

p t io n t h at h e was [n eg l i gen t

, Al m as s u d ] was req u i red t o p res en t

s u ffi ci en t co m

p e t e n t e v i d en ce t h at [an y v i o l at io n of a s t at e s t at u t e was

u n i n t en t i o n al ] .” Bu t

ger ei t v. En vi r o -Tech En vi r o n m en t a l S vcs

. , 2 6 2 G a. Ap p

. 7 5 4,

7 5 5 (1 ) (5 8 6 SE2 d 4 30 ) (2 0 0 3 ).

Al m as s u d at t em

p t ed t o m eet t h i s b u rd en an d reb u t t h e p re s u m p t i o n o f

n eg li g en ce b y s h o wi n g t h at t he s t eeri n g i n h i s veh i cl e h ad b een d efect i v el y i n s t al l ed

,

t h at t h e st eeri n g fai led im m ed i at el y b efo re t he co l l i s i o n, an d t hat h e d i d n o t k n o w o f

an y d efect i n t h e v e h i cl e. See g en eral l y Ja co b s v. Fel m et

, 1 0 5 Ga. Ap p

. 2 3 4 (1 2 4

SE2 d 30 7 ) (1 9 6 2 ) (fi n d i n g n o n eg l i g en ce o n p art o f defen d an t wh ere h e h ad n o

k n o wl ed g e o r n ot i ce o f an y d efect i n b rak es u nt i l th ey s u d d en l y g av e way cau s i n g

co l l i s i o n wi t h v eh i cl e t rav el i n g i n op p o si t e di rect i o n ). As reco u nt ed ab ov e, h e rai s ed

t h i s d efen s e i n h is p l ead i n g s an d p res en t ed so m e ev i d en ce, i n cl ud i n g h i s o wn

t es t i m o ny an d t h at o f an ex p ert wi t n es s , s up p o rt i n g t hat d efen s e t h eo ry

.

7Acco rd i ng l y

, A l m as s ud was en t i t l ed t o a ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n o n th e v i t al i s s u es o f

k n o wl ed g e o f a d efect an d u n i n t en t i o n al vi o l at i o ns t h at were rai s ed b y th e p l ead i n g s

,

t h e ev id en ce, an d t h e def e n s e t h eo ry o f t h e cas e. Ev en as s u m i n g t h at Al m as s u d ’ s

wri t ten req u es t fo r s u ch an i n s tru ct i o n was n o t p erfect

, h e ack n o w l ed g ed at t h e ch arg e

h eari n g t h at t he wri tt en req u es t s h o u ld b e ch an g ed i n o rd er t o in s t r u c t t h e ju ry

p ro p erl y o n t h e d efen s e; an d “ [n ] ev ert h el es s

, a t ri al co urt m u s t i n s t ru ct a ju ry o n t h e

l aw as to ev ery co n t ro l l i n g

, m at eri al

, s u b s t an t i al an d v i t a l i s s u e i n t h e cas e.”

Og l et h or p e P o wer Co r

p

. , s up ra (ci t at i o n om i t t ed ). A cco rd Du ff i el d

, s u p ra (fai l u re to

ch arg e o n a p ro p erl y as sert ed an d l eg al l y co gn i zab le t heo ry

, wh et h er req u es t ed o r n o t

,

i s harm fu l erro r). Ho wev er, t h es e v i t al i s s u es co n cern in g t he d efen s e th eo ry were n ot

i n cl u d ed i n , o r o t h erwi s e co v ered b y , t he t ri al co u rt ’ s ju ry i n st ru ct i o n s.

W h i l e we are rel u ct an t t o d i s t u rb an y ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

, a n ew t ri al m u s t be

g ran ted wh en a t ri al co u rt d ep ri v es a d efen d an t o f a t h eo ry o f defen s e b y

[fai l in g t o g i v e a ] ch arg e t hat i s su s t ai n ed b y t h e ev i d en ce. G i v en t hat

t h e t ri a l co urt ’ s [ju ry ] ch arg e

. . . d ep ri v ed [Al m as s ud ] o f a t h eo ry o f

d efen s e t o wh i ch [h e was ] en t i t led

, we co n cl ud e t h at [h e i s ] en t it l ed t o

a n ew t ri al .”

Ma xi n ea u v. Ki n g

, 3 0 4 Ga. A p p

. 2 17

, 2 2 1 (6 9 5 SE2 d 73 2 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (ci t at io n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t e d )

. See al s o La wyer s Ti t l e In s

. Co r

p

. v. New Fr eed

o m Mo rt g.

Co r p

. , 2 8 8 Ga. Ap p

. 6 4 2

, 64 5 (1 ) (6 5 5 SE2 d 2 6 9 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (ju ry ch arg e erro rs o n l eg al

8p ri n ci p l es th at g o t o th e cru x o f t h e ap pel l an t ’ s cas e are co n s i d ered s u b s t an t i a l a n d

h arm fu l ).

2

. Rema in i n g

en u mer a t i o n s

.

Gi v en o u r h o l d i n g ab o v e i n Di vi s i o n 1

, we do n o t reach th e rem ai n i n g

en u m erat i o n s o f erro r s et fo rt h i n ei t h er t he m ai n ap p eal o r t h e cro s s -ap p eal

.

Ju d g men t s r ever s ed a n d ca s es r ema n d

ed . Br a n ch a n d Bet h el

, JJ., co n cu r

.

9