Goldstein, Garber & Salama, LLC v. J. B.
300 Ga. 840
| Ga. | 2017Background
- J.B. underwent outpatient dental surgery at Goldstein, Garber & Salama, LLC (GGS) on Sept. 16, 2009; a CRNA, Paul Serdula, administered anesthesia and kept her heavily sedated for ~2 hours with a 35-minute break.
- While J.B. was anesthetized and at some point left alone with Serdula, he sexually assaulted her and made video recordings; similar recordings of other patients were later discovered.
- Serdula was hired as an independent contractor via an anesthesia staffing agency that credentialed him; GGS had no prior knowledge or record showing a propensity for sexual assault.
- J.B. sued Serdula and GGS; she later withdrew claims against Serdula after his guilty plea; the jury found for J.B. against GGS; the Court of Appeals affirmed; Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The central legal questions: whether Serdula’s intervening criminal acts were foreseeable/proximately caused by GGS’s alleged breaches (including supervision/anesthesia level), whether negligence per se based on OCGA § 43-11-21.1 was established, and whether any objection to the jury’s apportionment was waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foreseeability / proximate cause of intervening criminal act | GGS’s alleged breaches (insufficient supervision; patient left unattended; excessive sedation) made assault a foreseeable consequence | Serdula’s criminal acts were unforeseeable intervening acts that broke the causal chain | Court held Serdula’s criminal acts were not reasonably foreseeable as a probable consequence of GGS’s conduct; directed verdict should have been granted for GGS |
| Negligence per se under OCGA § 43-11-21.1 (permit requirements) | Violation of permitting requirements by GGS dentists establishes negligence per se causing J.B.’s harm | Statutory violation does not establish negligence per se for harms the statute does not intend to prevent | Court held the statute aims to prevent medical/anesthesia-related complications, not remote criminal sexual assaults; negligence per se not established |
| Whether professional-standards breach (supervision/anesthesia level) can impose liability for nonmedical criminal harms | J.B.: breach of professional standards rendered patient vulnerable and thus linked to assault | GGS: absent evidence of notice of propensity, breach does not make remote criminal acts foreseeable | Court held even if standards were breached, the intervening criminal act was too remote and not a probable consequence; breach cannot be proximate cause |
| Waiver of objection to jury apportionment of fault | J.B.: apportionment verdict stands | GGS: objected but argument on waiver presented | Court did not reach waiver issue because reversal was based on foreseeability and negligence-per-se grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. American Nat. Red Cross, 276 Ga. 270 (discusses elements of negligence and proximate cause)
- Ontario Sewing Machine Co. v. Smith, 275 Ga. 683 (intervening wrongful act doctrine and foreseeability exception)
- Munroe v. Universal Health Svcs., Inc., 277 Ga. 861 (when foreseeability is properly decided as a matter of law)
- Central Anesthesia Assoc. v. Worthy, 254 Ga. 728 (negligence per se supplies duty/breach but proximate cause still required)
- Chritser v. McFadden, 277 Ga. 653 (proximate cause element in professional negligence)
- Georgia Osteopathic Hosp. v. O’Neal, 198 Ga. App. 770 (distinguishes medical drug-induced violent acts from intervening criminal acts)
- Strickland v. DeKalb Hosp. Auth., 197 Ga. App. 63 (intervening criminal act can break causal chain)