Court Opinion

ID: 9561056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:01:50.253543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:30.453038
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent as I cannot concur in the majority’s application of inapplicable malpractice standards to the case sub judice. This is a case requiring the use of ordinary and reasonable care to protect the plaintiff husband from any known or reasonably apprehended danger which may be due to his condition.
At the outset, I do not agree with the majority’s position that plaintiffs waived any objection to defendant’s fourth request to charge by failing to except to the charge after the jury was instructed.
During a charge conference, plaintiffs’ counsel objected to defendant’s fourth request to charge stating “again this speaks of an intended result, and here the myelogram procedure produced its intended result, which was in fact taking of x-rays [sic], production of x-rays [sic] that were in fact done.” The trial judge rejected this exception and informed the parties that he intended to give defendant’s fourth request to charge. Later, the trial judge did so charge the jury.
*406After the jury was charged, the trial judge addressed both plaintiffs’ counsel and defendant’s counsel as follows: “All right, gentlemen. Of course, we had our charge conference in some detail earlier this afternoon. I incorporate by reference at this point all of your exceptions to the rulings of the Court at that time. Are there any matters that we did not take up at that time that you would like to point out; that is, is there anything that I charged that I said I wouldn’t charge, is there anything that I didn’t charge that I said I would charge, is there anything that I said I would charge in a certain way that I didn’t charge that way, and is there anything that I did charge that we didn’t discuss that you except to. . . .?” (Emphasis supplied.) Plaintiffs’ counsel did not except to the giving of defendant’s fourth request to charge, but he did make an observation relating to the claims of plaintiffs being made separate if there was an award in favor of plaintiffs, prefaced by the following remark: “Your Honor, only thing we haven’t addressed is . . . .” Plaintiffs’ counsel had previously objected to defendant’s fourth request to charge at the charge conference conducted by the trial court prior to the charging of the jury.
After a weekend recess, the jury returned to deliberate and asked the court the following question: “Could we the jury have a copy of the charges to the jury?” The trial judge responded by instructing the jury on all aspects of its previous charge, excluding only the charge on damages. After these instructions, the court inquired of counsel, “Other than previous exceptions . . . any others for the record?” (Emphasis supplied.) Plaintiffs’ counsel did not make exceptions to the recharge of defendant’s fourth request to charge which was previously objected to at the charge conference.
In Sims v. Johnson, 185 Ga. App. 720 (365 SE2d 532), this court held that “ ‘[a]n objection to an instruction which is made during a charge conference, but which is not made or reiterated following the giving of the charge, fails to preserve the matter for review by an appellate court. The requirement is that there be a proper objection after the court instructed the jury and before the jury returned the verdict. (A)n objection made only at a charge conference is insufficient to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Brown v. Sims, 174 Ga. App. 243, 244 (329 SE2d 523) (1985); Caudell v. Sargent, 118 Ga. App. 405 (164 SE2d 148) (1968).” Id. at 720, 721. In the case sub judice, plaintiffs’ counsel did not reiterate his charge conference objections after the jury was instructed. He failed to do so only upon the trial judge’s direction (“Other than previous objections . . .”) and after the trial judge incorporated all prior objections to the charges by reference. Nonetheless, defendant cites Hurst v. J. P. Colley Contractors, 167 Ga. App. 56, 57 (2) (306 SE2d 54), arguing that reference to an objection made during a preinstruc*407tion charge conference after the jury has been instructed is insufficient to preserve the record for appeal.
In Hurst v. J. P. Colley Contractors, supra, the appellants in that case made a general objection to the trial court’s charge on the doctrine of “last clear chance.” The colloquy that followed the objection demonstrated that the trial judge understood the appellants’ complaint, but did not want to hear a more specific objection because the issue had been discussed during an off-the-record charge conference. On appeal, appellee argued that appellants’ general objection was insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. This court agreed and did not address the merits, reasoning that the record is insufficient to determine “whether the objections to the language of the instruction urged on appeal were brought to the attention of the trial court.” Hurst v. J. P. Colley Contractors, 167 Ga. App. 56, 58 (2), 58, supra. The case sub judice is distinguishable from Hurst v. J. P. Colley Contractors, supra, in that here we have a full record of the preinstruction charge conference and we are able to review plaintiffs’ specific objection to defendant’s fourth request to charge. From this perspective, I view the trial judge’s instruction to counsel, in the case sub judice, not to reiterate any prior objections to the charge as an exception to the rule that counsel must reiterate all objections to the charge after the jury has been instructed. To say otherwise, would penalize the complaining party for. obeying the trial court’s order.
Further, I do not subscribe to the majority’s position that the trial court did not err in charging the jury that “[a] doctor is not an insurer and an unintended result does not raise even an inference of negligence.”
Defendant’s fourth request to charge appears to reflect the legal principle upon which is founded the rule of law that malpractice may not be inferred from an unfavorable result of a medical procedure. In Blount v. Moore, 159 Ga. App. 80 (1) (282 SE2d 720), a majority of this court characterized the language of a charge which reflected the same principle as argumentative, inappropriate and misleading and held that, while such a rule is appropriate to an appellate decision reviewing evidence in a malpractice case, it should not be included as a charge in a malpractice case. The majority in Blount reasoned that such a charge “could not possibly enlighten a jury of fact finders on the objective standard of care required of a physician.” Blount v. Moore, 159 Ga. App. 80 (1), 82, supra. See Jackson v. Rodriquez, 173 Ga. App. 211, 213 (3) (325 SE2d 857); Hyles v. Cockrill, 169 Ga. App. 132, 133 (3) (312 SE2d 124); Sullivan v. Henry, 160 Ga. App. 791, 798 (1), 800, 801 (287 SE2d 652); and Hawkins v. Greenberg, 159 Ga. App. 302 (2), 309, 310 (283 SE2d 301). In the case sub judice, the language of defendant’s fourth request to charge is not only susceptible to being misunderstood as imposing a lesser standard of care for physi*408cians, it is confusing because it is not adjusted to the evidence.
Decided June 28, 1989
Rehearing denied July 20, 1989
Simmons & Toliver, James C. Simmons, Jr., A. Leroy Toliver, Lynda G. Whitt, for appellants.
Downey, Cleveland & Parker, Lynn A. Downey, Russell B. Davis, for appellee.
“ ‘A charge which is not applicable to the facts should not be given. Collins v. Dixon, 72 Ga. 475 (2) (1884).’ Todd v. State, 149 Ga. App. 574, 575 (2) (254 SE2d 894).” Studdard v. State, 185 Ga. App. 319 (1), 320 (363 SE2d 837). In the case sub judice, plaintiffs are not complaining of the result of the cervical myelogram procedure, they are complaining of an injury which allegedly occurred as a result of the doctor’s (agent of the defendant) negligence in protecting Mr. Clemons from injury during the myelogram procedure. In other words, defendant’s fourth request to charge was a correct abstract principle of law which confused the real issue in the case sub judice, i.e., whether under the particular facts and circumstances the doctor (defendant’s agent) exercised ordinary and reasonable care in looking after Mr. Clemons while he was charged with Mr. Clemons’ care. See Cobb County &c. Hosp. Auth. v. Crumbley, 179 Ga. App. 896, 898 (348 SE2d 49). Since it is likely that the trial court’s instruction misled and confused the jury with regard to the duty of care required of the doctor (defendant’s agent) and since the charge was not adjusted to the evidence, it is my view that a new trial is required. Compare Blount v. Moore, 159 Ga. App. 80 (1), 83, supra.
In light of the above and the needed retrial, I find it unnecessary to express my views relating to plaintiffs’ remaining enumerations. More particularly, it is unnecessary to address the error cited in plaintiffs’ third enumeration, as the same would be unlikely to arise upon a retrial.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Carley joins in this dissent.