333 Ga. App. 85
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Aug. 14, 2008, a Clayton County officer pursued Lance Locke after observing driving he characterized as reckless; Locke fled and a high-speed chase ensued through a commercial area at speeds exceeding 110 mph.
- During the pursuit Locke’s vehicle struck and killed motorcyclist James Segrest. James’s spouse, Karen Segrest, sued Clayton County for wrongful death alleging the officer recklessly disregarded proper law enforcement procedures in initiating and continuing the pursuit.
- County moved to disqualify plaintiff’s experts (Geoffrey Alpert and Andrew Scott) and for summary judgment under OCGA § 40‑6‑6(d)(2). The trial court denied both motions; the County appealed interlocutorily.
- Experts: Alpert (criminology professor with extensive pursuit research/publications) and Scott (30+ years law‑enforcement experience and accreditation assessor) opined the officer violated pursuit policy and that his conduct recklessly disregarded proper procedures and proximately caused the death.
- County argued experts’ opinions were unreliable, would not assist the jury, and impermissibly stated legal conclusions (e.g., “reckless disregard,” “proximate cause”); County also argued the officer did not meet the statutory reckless‑disregard standard such that summary judgment should have been granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility — reliability of experts’ methodology | Alpert and Scott rely on specialized study/experience; opinions grounded in accepted principles and methods and assist the trier of fact | Experts’ opinions are ipse dixit, unsupported, and unreliable | Court: Experts sufficiently qualified; methodology reliable under OCGA § 24‑7‑702 — admission not an abuse of discretion (affirmed in part) |
| Admissibility — whether opinions address matters beyond a layperson | Expert testimony explains balancing test and technical pursuit practices beyond lay understanding | County: Whether officer violated policy is within jury’s ordinary understanding | Court: Experts may explain discrete, technical police‑practice issues; testimony admissible to assist jury (affirmed) |
| Admissibility — experts using legal terms ("reckless disregard," "proximate cause") | Experts may explain factual predicates and apply working definitions to inform jury | County: Use of legal terms constitutes impermissible legal conclusions and should be excluded | Court: Experts cannot state legal conclusions; opinions that directly state "reckless disregard" or that the officer "proximately caused" death were excluded — trial court’s denial reversed in part |
| Summary judgment — whether officer acted with "reckless disregard" of proper procedures such that County is liable | Segrest: Evidence (officer’s conduct, experts’ opinions, factual disputes about whether Locke committed offenses) permits a jury to find conscious indifference to risk; factual dispute precludes summary judgment | County: No settled definition of "proper law enforcement procedures"; officer’s discretionary acts shouldn’t be judged by hindsight; summary judgment should be granted | Court: "Proper procedures" can include agency policy and national balancing test; reckless disregard means conscious indifference; genuine fact issues exist — summary judgment properly denied (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Assaf v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 327 Ga. App. 475 (discussing summary judgment standard)
- HNTB Ga. v. Hamilton‑King, 287 Ga. 641 (expert admissibility and gatekeeping factors under Georgia rule)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (federal standard for expert reliability)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (flexible reliability inquiry; experience‑based experts admissible)
- Strength v. Lovett, 311 Ga. App. 35 (interpreting OCGA § 40‑6‑6(d)(2) and role of agency policy/expert testimony)
- Montgomery v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 898 F.2d 1537 (experts may not testify to legal implications/results)