Dagne v. Schroeder
336 Ga. App. 36
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 11, 2011, Emebet Dagne drove erratically, crossed toward oncoming traffic, and struck Sue Schroeder’s van; Schroeder and her minor daughter were injured.
- Witnesses Maxwell and Diedre Walsh observed erratic driving, reported a suspected drunk driver, and recommended a toxicology screen; they testified they believed Dagne was impaired based on observations but did not know whether she consumed alcohol or drugs.
- At the scene a responding officer testified he saw no signs of impairment; Dagne did not assist the victims after the collision.
- Schroeder sued for compensatory and punitive damages (alleging impairment and a pattern of reckless driving). The trial was bifurcated: phase one determined liability and whether punitive damages were warranted; phase two determined punishment amount and considered prior convictions.
- The jury awarded $150,000 compensatory damages, found Dagne liable for punitive damages (but expressly found she was not under the influence), and awarded $100,000 punitive damages after phase two evidence including prior traffic/DUI convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of partial summary judgment on punitive damages | Schroeder argued punitive damages claim should proceed; summary denial was proper | Dagne argued summary judgment should bar punitive claim based on impairment allegation | Moot — denial of summary judgment overtaken by trial verdict (Moore v. Moore principle) |
| Admissibility of lay opinions that Dagne was impaired | Maxwell/Walsh: lay testimony that Dagne appeared intoxicated based on observations was relevant | Dagne: witnesses lacked knowledge of substance use so opinion inadmissible | Admissible — lay opinions based on personal perception and helpful to testimony; Walsh’s 911 statements waived objection |
| Directed verdict / JNOV on punitive damages | Dagne: no admissible evidence of impairment so punitive not warranted; jury rejected impairment | Schroeder: punitive damages could be based on other grounds (wanton, wilful, reckless driving) | Denied — any-evidence standard satisfied because erratic driving supported punitive damages apart from impairment (Dagne waived challenge to that theory) |
| Exclusion of Dagne’s financial evidence at punishment phase | Dagne: financial condition is relevant to punitive amount and should be admitted | Schroeder: admission would open evidence about insurer/settlement; court should exclude for unfair prejudice | No abuse of discretion — court excluded both parties’ financial/insurance evidence to prevent unfair prejudice |
| Mistrial based on mention of prior conviction | Dagne: question referencing a disallowed conviction required mistrial | Schroeder: question withdrawn and court instructed jury to disregard; no timely mistrial motion | Waived — Dagne did not move for mistrial contemporaneously, so issue not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Moore, 281 Ga. 81 (denial of summary judgment becomes moot after trial verdict)
- Knight v. State, 271 Ga. 557 (lay witness may opine on another’s apparent intoxication based on observation)
- Faulkner v. State, 295 Ga. 321 (trial court’s discretion governs admission of lay opinion evidence)
- Turnage v. Kasper, 307 Ga. App. 172 (appellate review construes evidence in favor of upholding verdict under any-evidence standard)
- Tookes v. Murray, 297 Ga. App. 765 (punitive damages may be awarded on inference of conscious indifference)
- Holland v. Caviness, 292 Ga. 332 (defendant’s financial condition may be admissible in punitive damages proceedings)
- Galardi v. Steele-Inman, 266 Ga. App. 515 (standard for directed verdict/JNOV review)
- Tuten v. State, 242 Ga. App. 223 (motion for mistrial must be made contemporaneously to preserve error)