Barnes v. Smith
339 Ga. App. 607
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 19, 2012, Cyrus Knight left Hank & Jerry’s Tavern after drinking and later drove, colliding with Deena Barnes and causing serious injuries.
- Barnes sued the tavern owner DLN Enterprises, Inc. and DLN’s sole shareholder Richard Smith under Georgia dram-shop law and for negligent training, negligent supervision, and punitive damages.
- The night bartender (the shift supervisor) served Knight, observed signs of intoxication, tried to prevent him from driving, but did not contact police and allowed him to leave after a third party let him out.
- Smith moved for summary judgment arguing no basis existed to hold him personally liable (no veil piercing or direct personal participation in the torts).
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Smith; Barnes appealed only the claims asserting Smith’s individual liability for negligent training and negligent supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a corporate officer can be held personally liable for negligent training of employees | Barnes: Smith should be personally liable for negligently training tavern employees whose actions led to injury | Smith: Officer liability requires direct participation in the tort; negligent training alone is insufficient | Summary judgment for Smith; negligent training does not, by itself, establish personal liability absent direct participation |
| Whether Smith can be liable for negligent supervision | Barnes: Smith failed to supervise the bartender, who had tendencies to serve intoxicated patrons | Smith: No evidence he knew or should have known of the bartender’s need for additional supervision | Summary judgment for Smith; no evidence Smith knew or should have known of problematic tendencies |
| Whether punitive damages against Smith survive | Barnes: Seeks punitive damages against Smith | Smith: Punitive damages require underlying compensatory liability | Summary judgment for Smith; punitive damages unavailable without viable underlying claims against him |
| Whether corporate veil piercing should be considered | Barnes: Did not raise veil-piercing on appeal | Smith: N/A | Court declined to address veil-piercing because it was not argued on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Agnes Scott College v. Clark, 273 Ga. App. 619 (appellate standard for summary judgment review)
- Beasley v. A Better Gas Co., 269 Ga. App. 426 (officer not personally liable absent direct participation; negligent training alone insufficient)
- Dempsey v. Southeastern Indus. Contracting Co., 309 Ga. App. 140 (same principle regarding officer liability and training)
- Novare Group v. Sarif, 290 Ga. 186 (negligent supervision requires employer knowledge of employee’s tendencies)
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (nonmovant’s burden to point to specific evidence opposing summary judgment)
- D.G. Jenkins Homes, Inc. v. Wood, 261 Ga. App. 322 (punitive damages require underlying compensatory damages)
- CDP Event Svcs. v. Atcheson, 289 Ga. App. 183 (appellate courts do not address issues the trial court did not decide)
- Headrick v. Stonepark of Dunwoody Unit Owners Assn., 331 Ga. App. 772 (appellate waiver when an argument is not raised on appeal)