Georgia Department of Corrections v. Couch
312 Ga. App. 544
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Couch sued the Georgia Department of Corrections for injuries sustained while painting at Walker State Prison.
- Couch walked on exposed, dry-rotted floor joists during a renovation; some joists had been replaced but others remained rotted.
- Couch and crew traversed kitchen/dining area to access supplies and upper floors without warnings about the rot.
- Couch fell when a joist gave way, suffering a severed urethra; the jury awarded $105,417 to Couch.
- The Department challenged the verdict on multiple grounds, including duty, evidentiary rulings, mistrial, and a voluntary-departure instruction, all of which the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Couch an invitee or licensee for duty of care purposes? | Couch was an invitee because his presence benefited the Department. | Couch was a licensee due to inmate status and route deviation from invited area. | Question for jury; evidence supported invitee status |
| Was there evidence Couch knew of the specific dry-rot hazard and should have taken care? | Couch lacked specific knowledge of rot in the particular joists. | Couch should have appreciated the hazard from prior traversals. | Jury question on whether Couch appreciated the specific hazard |
| Did Couch assume the risk by traversing floor joists? | Couch did not assume the risk given general construction practices and lack of specific warning. | Couch assumed risk by engaging in a dangerous activity already known to be hazardous. | Jury question; no directed verdict on assumption of risk |
| Was the mistrial properly avoided after the Paris email remark was read to the jury? | No favorable cure; mistrial required. | Curative instruction sufficed to cure prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; mistrial not warranted |
| Did the trial court err in evidentiary rulings and refusal to give a voluntary-departure instruction? | Some rulings and the refused charge were error and prejudicial. | Rulings were within discretion and charge was covered by other instructions. | No reversible error; charge of voluntary departure not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Freese II v. Moses, 301 Ga. App. 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (utility of verdict-form context and standards for directed verdicts)
- Ramcke v. Ga. Power Co., 306 Ga. App. 736 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (evidentiary and trial-practice guidance in appellate review)
- Shaw v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Ga., 191 Ga. App. 583 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989) (standards for appellate treatment of jury verdicts and evidence)
- Nosiri v. Helm, 301 Ga. App. 380 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (jurisdictional considerations and evidentiary review in Georgia appeals)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Wilkes County, 102 Ga. App. 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966) (curative instructions and prejudice considerations in mistrial rulings)