Duffield v. CHUI
314 Ga. App. 214
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Duffield sued Chui and Methvin after Chui punched Duffield, causing serious injury.
- The case was tried in Fulton County before a jury; Duffield prevailed against Chui and Methvin per defense verdict on Chui and Methvin.
- Duffield appeals the judgment in favor of Chui, arguing the court erred by not charging battery and by instructing on negligence instead.
- Duffield had asserted a separate battery claim in his complaint and in pretrial submissions identified the case as an intentional tort.
- The appellate court reversed the judgment against Chui and remanded for a new trial with proper battery instructions, holding battery was pled, evidenced, and required instruction.
- Chui admitted he intentionally punched Duffield; the issue centers on whether the jury should have been instructed on battery rather than negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not charging battery. | Duffield argues battery theory was pled, proved, and requested; charge should follow battery. | Chui argues negligence theory was the sole cognizable theory and battery wasn't properly pled. | Reversed and remanded for new trial to instruct on battery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. Plantation Pipeline Co., 121 Ga.App. 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970) (trial court must instruct on all controlling issues; improper omission is harmful)
- Gurin v. General Motors Corp., 171 Ga.App. 159 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984) (court must instruct on all legally cognizable theories supported by the evidence)
- Tempo Mgmt. v. Lewis, 210 Ga.App. 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (failure to charge a properly asserted theory requires reversal)
- Williams v. Knight, 211 Ga.App. 420 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (battery recognized as a tort in Georgia)
- Rucker v. Columbia Nat. Ins. Co., 307 Ga.App. 444 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (pleadings construed liberally to achieve substantial justice)