Kesterson v. Jarrett
307 Ga. App. 244
Ga. Ct. App.2010Background
- Kyla Kesterson was severely injured at birth resulting in cerebral palsy and extensive daily care needs.
- The case concerns a Georgia medical malpractice action against Dr. Jarrett, Athens Obstetrics, and St. Mary’s Hospital, following a bifurcated liability/damages trial.
- The trial court bifurcated liability from damages, holding damages evidence irrelevant to liability.
- The court restricted Kyla’s presence in the courtroom during the liability phase and allowed limited appearances with conditions for her presence.
- Kestersons sought Kyla’s presence and to use video/photos, but the court limited this to specific purposes and circumstances.
- The appellate court analyzed whether excluding Kyla violated due process and whether other evidentiary restrictions were proper, ultimately affirming the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether limiting Kyla’s courtroom presence during liability violated due process | Kyla’s presence is a due process right and essential. | Presence is not absolute; extensive injuries may prejudice the jury. | Not reversible; but require explicit written findings in future. |
| Whether cross-examining Jarrett about the 6:47 p.m. fetal distress would be reversible | Question shows defendant's awareness and potential negligence. | Hypothetical questioning is speculative and inadmissible. | Harmless; testimony was cumulative. |
| Whether exclusion of a Kyla DVD during liability was error | DVD evidences Kyla’s injuries and should illustrate causation. | Damages-oriented; risk of prejudice; not allowed in liability phase. | Properly excluded; probative value limited and prejudicial risk high. |
Key Cases Cited
- Helminski v. Ayerst Laboratories, 766 F.2d 208 (6th Cir. 1985) (two-step due process framework for excluding a severely injured plaintiff from trial)
- Green v. North Arundel Hosp. Assn., 785 A.2d 361 (Md. 2001) (examines presence rights and safeguards against prejudice)
- Onaka v. Onaka, 146 P.3d 89 (Haw. 2006) (presence rights beyond absolute; due process considerations)