Double View Ventures, LLC v. Polite
326 Ga. App. 555
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Polite filed a premises liability suit against Double View and Westdale for injuries from an attack at Stonebridge Apartments (May 30, 2007).
- The assault occurred after Polite traversed a wooden fence opening between the Stonebridge property and a Chevron station nearby; assailants were not apprehended.
- There was a history of armed robberies/assaults at Stonebridge and on the Chevron property in the preceding years; a fence gap and inadequate security were identified.
- A security expert opined the access/perimeter control fell below standard of care and the wooden fence could aid attackers; a former guard reported security concerns to management.
- Polite’s verdict: Polite 13% at fault, Defendants 87% at fault; no fault allocated to unknown assailants; Chevron was not on the verdict form for apportionment.
- The trial court allowed a directed verdict excluding Chevron from fault apportionment; this appeal challenges that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chevron could be apportionable fault nonparty | Polite: OCGA § 51-12-33 allows nonparties’ fault to be apportioned. | Defs contended notices sufficed; ownership identity not needed to apportion. | Reversed: Chevron may be considered, evidence supported jury question on liability. |
| Whether the jury should apportion fault to the criminal assailants | Jurors may consider all tortfeasors; crime foreseeability supported recovery. | Criminals’ fault not required by statute if not named; no evidence tying them to defendants. | Remanded: jury must consider fault apportionment to all responsible parties, including nonparties. |
| Proximate cause instruction consistency with apportionment statute | Charge aligned with foreseeability and apportionment. | No error; instruction consistent with applicable law. | Affirmed: proximate cause instruction proper with apportionment framework. |
| Admission of bad character evidence | Character evidence should be admissible if probative. | Evidence was prejudicial and collateral to key issues. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding character evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Couch v. Red Roof Inns, 291 Ga. 359 (2012) (premises liability apportionment and nonparty fault)
- Sturbridge Partners, Ltd. v. Walker, 267 Ga. 785 (1997) (foreseeability of criminal acts and duty to protect from crime)
- Levine v. SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, 321 Ga. App. 268 (2013) (burden to show rational basis to apportion fault to nonparties)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Fields, 315 Ga. App. 554 (2012) (nonparty fault apportionment limits; standards on notices)
- Georgia-Pacific v. Fields, 293 Ga. 499 (2013) (apportionment and foreseeing criminal activity; limits of nonparty fault)