Jordan v. Everson
302 Ga. 364
Ga.2017Background
- Ben Everson was treated in an emergency room by Dr. Brian Jordan on April 29, 2008 for auditory hallucinations; Jordan diagnosed obsessive-compulsive disorder and discharged him with instructions and scheduling assistance for outpatient mental-health follow-up.
- The ER arranged an appointment for May 1 at a nearby facility; instead, Ben’s father, Mr. Everson, scheduled an appointment at Duke in Durham and began driving Ben there.
- On May 1, while driving on the interstate to Durham, Ben exited the moving vehicle, ran onto the highway, and was struck and killed.
- Ben’s parents sued Jordan for wrongful death; the trial court denied Jordan’s motion for summary judgment, and Jordan appealed.
- The Court of Appeals (Everson v. Phoebe Sumter Med. Ctr.) affirmed denial, holding an independent intervening act severs causation only if it is "wrongful or negligent." Jordan petitioned for certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Court of Appeals on that legal point, holding the Court of Appeals misapplied Georgia precedent about foreseeability and intervening acts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an independent intervening act severs the causal chain only if it is "wrongful or negligent" | The driving to Duke was not a superseding cause unless it was wrongful or negligent, so causation remains for Jordan | An intervening act severs causation if it was not reasonably foreseeable or if it was not triggered by the defendant's conduct; no requirement that the act be wrongful or negligent | An intervening act need not be wrongful or negligent to break the causal chain; the correct test is foreseeability/ whether it was caused or reasonably anticipated by the defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern R. Co. v. Webb, 116 Ga. 152 (establishing foreseeability, not a "wrongful or negligent" label, governs whether an intervening act severs causation)
- Zaldivar v. Prickett, 297 Ga. 589 (discussing foreseeability and causal connection in intervening-act analysis)
- Goldstein, Garber & Salama v. J. B., 300 Ga. 840 (addressed an indisputably wrongful intervening act; did not adopt a blanket rule that intervening acts must be wrongful)
- Everson v. Phoebe Sumter Med. Ctr., 341 Ga. App. 182 (Court of Appeals decision that was reversed in part for requiring an intervening act be "wrongful or negligent")