Court Opinion

ID: 9854084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:00:28.845571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:54.985721
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although I agree that the third sentence of the hindsight charge given in this case is inconsistent with the standard of care in many medical malpractice cases and that its use should be disapproved, I do not agree with the majority’s decision to disapprove the use of the second sentence of the jury charge given here. As the majority concedes, the second sentence of the charge is a facially accurate statement of law. As such, this accurate statement of law should be included in, rather than excluded from, the language of the charge at issue in this case. See Critser v. McFadden, 277 Ga. 653, 654 (593 SE2d 330) (2004) (“A jury charge should correctly state the law applicable to the issues in the case”) (citation omitted). Indeed, rather than placing “undu[e] emphasi[s on] the notion that hindsight has no role in the assessment of negligence,” as the majority suggests, the second sentence of the charge merely simplifies, in an accurate way, the legal concept outlined in the first sentence of the charge. Compare Holbrook v. Fokes, 195 Ga. App. 418 (393 SE2d 718) (1990) (where initial assessment made in accordance with reasonable standards of medical care, “an after-the-fact assessment of facts or evidence cannot be the basis of a negligence claim”) with the second sentence of the Jury Instructions (“[T]he concept of negligence does not include hindsight.”). In this regard, the second sentence should remain part of the overall charge as a means of further assisting the jury during its deliberations.
By the majority’s analysis, however, any pattern jury charge containing additional language that clarifies or simplifies legal *714concepts outlined earlier in the charge — even in an entirely accurate way — is now in doubt and would be subject to disapproval by this Court. Such a result is untenable, as it unduly restricts a trial court in its efforts to fulfill its responsibility of providing the jury with “instructions which are relevant and necessary [for the jury] to weigh the evidence and enable the jury to discharge its duty.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Tillman v. Massey, 281 Ga. 291, 294 (1) (637 SE2d 720) (2006). I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the use of the second sentence in the jury charge given here should be disapproved.
Decided June 29, 2009 —
Reconsideration denied July 28, 2009.
David S. Bills, Benjamin L. Bagwell, for appellants.
McClure, Ramsay, Dickerson & Escoe, John A. Dickerson, Larry L. Hicks II, Forrester & Brim, Weymon H. Forrester, Tracy M. Morgan, Elizabeth F. Latta, for appellees.
James D. Summerville, Donald J. Palmisano, Jr., Peters & Monyak, Robert P Monyak, Jeffrey S. Bazinet, amici curiae.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hines joins in this dissent.