Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Court of Appeals of Georgia
Moore v. Stewart
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-30 · cited 15×
In Moore v. Stewart, Ronald and Debra Moore, as guardians for Tracy Ann Boone, sued William Stewart for negligence after Boone suffered disabling injuries in a three-vehicle collision, alleging that Stewart’s rear-end collision with Boone pushed her into oncoming traffic. A jury returned a verdict for Stewart, and the trial court denied the Moores’ post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial under OCGA § 5-5-20. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of judgment n.o.v. because the Moores had not moved for a directed verdict at trial, rendering that motion procedurally barred, and because evidence—including expert testimony that Boone caused the initial collision—supported the verdict. It vacated the denial of the new-trial motion, however, and remanded the case, holding that the trial court failed to exercise its independent discretion to determine whether the verdict was contrary to the evidence and the principles of justice and equity, instead improperly deferring entirely to the jury’s credibility findings.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Broadnax v. Daniel Custom Construction, LLC
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-29 · cited 7×
This case arose from a 2009 car collision in which Angela Broadnax was injured by Sebastian Mendoza while he was driving to obtain a ladder for window-washing work at the home of Randall and Kathy Daniel. Broadnax sued the Daniels on theories of vicarious liability under respondeat superior and direct liability for negligent hiring and supervision, but the trial court granted the Daniels summary judgment, finding either that Mendoza was an independent contractor or that he was acting outside any employment relationship at the time. On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence created genuine issues of material fact on both points. The record showed the Daniels set Mendoza’s tasks and hours, paid him hourly (including for the residence work), could fire him, and supplied equipment, supporting a possible employee relationship; it also indicated that on the day of the accident Mendoza was en route to retrieve a ladder for a work task requested by Mr. Daniel rather than on a purely personal errand.
labor & employmenttorts & liability
Wright v. Apartment Investment & Management Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-29 · cited 45×
In Wright v. Apartment Investment & Management Co., the AIMCO Group sued former employee Garland Wright, his wife, and their company S&D Associates for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conspiracy, alleging that Wright accepted kickbacks from a contractor he recommended for multimillion-dollar projects and failed to ensure subcontractors were paid, resulting in liens and over $2 million in damages. After a jury found for the plaintiffs and the trial court denied the defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, the defendants appealed. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for AIMCO, holding that evidence of Wright’s large unexplained cash deposits, luxury purchases, and role in awarding contracts supported the jury’s findings of fraud and fiduciary breach, but reversed the judgment for OP Property Management because that entity lacked an independent underlying tort claim.
business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability
Stevenson v. City of Doraville
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-28 · cited 3×
Kenyatta Stevenson sued the City of Doraville after a police officer failed to redirect traffic around his stalled car on Interstate 285, resulting in Stevenson being struck by another vehicle while standing outside his car. The trial court granted the City summary judgment, and the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the public duty doctrine barred liability because municipalities are generally not liable for failures to provide police protection to individuals unless a special relationship exists, which requires an explicit assurance of aid, knowledge that inaction could harm the plaintiff, and justifiable reliance. Here, the officer's activation of flashing lights did not constitute such an assurance, Stevenson's decision to remain in his vehicle stemmed only from his own belief that help was coming, and the facts showed no active negligence or identifiable crime victim. The ruling concluded that the officer's conduct involved a general public duty to manage traffic rather than a specific duty to Stevenson.
torts & liability
RELIANCE TRUST CO. v. Candler
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-26 · cited 7×
In this case, Reliance Trust Company, as co-trustee of a marital trust created by Claire Candler, authorized over $1 million in distributions from the trust corpus to her widower, Buddy Candler, under an encroachment clause allowing payments only if his income proved insufficient for his support. After Buddy’s death, the eight grandchildren (remainder beneficiaries appointed under his will) sued Reliance for breach of trust and related claims, alleging improper invasions that reduced the corpus from $2.1 million to about $838,000. A jury returned a verdict for the grandchildren, and the trial court entered judgment and awarded interest. On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the verdict (rendering the earlier summary-judgment denial moot), that the jury instructions on trust terms were proper, and that charging legal interest from the dates of the encroachments was correct under Georgia law.
propertyproceduretorts & liability
Kirkland v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-26 · cited 11×
In Kirkland v. State, David Kirkland and Rickey Bailey were jointly tried and convicted of armed robbery after approaching a victim in his driveway, striking him with a gun, and taking $216 in cash; Bailey was also convicted of aggravated assault. Both defendants appealed the trial court's denial of their motions for new trial, raising claims including insufficient evidence, improper peremptory strikes under Batson v. Kentucky, admission of hearsay and physical evidence, prosecutorial comments on their silence, violations of the continuing witness rule, unauthorized bailiff communications with the jury, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, holding that the evidence—viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict—was sufficient to identify Kirkland and Bailey as participants, based on the victim's testimony, Kirkland's flight and possession of a bloody $100 bill matching the stolen funds, their false alibis, and Bailey's admissions to others. The court further concluded that the remaining claims either lacked merit, were not preserved, or did not require reversal.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights