Leibel v. Johnson
291 Ga. 180
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Dr. Mary Johnson sued Steven Leibel for legal malpractice after a verdict in her favor; Leibel moved for JNOV and for a new trial, which the trial court denied JNOV but granted the new trial; Court of Appeals reversed the new-trial grant but affirmed denial of JNOV; Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the causation/causation-evidence issue; Court held expert causation testimony inadmissible for the malpractice second-phase question; decision clarifies proper role of the second jury and expert evidence in malpractice causation
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert causation testimony is admissible in a legal malpractice suit to prove causal linkage | Johnson argues expert causation is admissible to show but-for negligence. | Leibel contends expert testimony on underlying causation is improper under standard tort practice. | Expert causation testimony is not admissible to resolve the malpractice causation issue. |
| Who determines what the underlying jury would have done in the absence of negligence | Johnson relies on expert testimony to show the underlying case outcome. | Leibel argues the second jury should not re-create the underlying jury’s verdict. | The second jury determines what a reasonable jury would have done, not what the original jury would have done. |
| Whether the Court of Appeals erred by allowing expert testimony on the underlying case’s outcome | Johnson asserts expert testimony supports causation. | Leibel asserts it should be excluded as improper expert bolstering. | Court of Appeals erred; expert testimony on the underlying case outcome was inadmissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Lefkoff, Duncan, Grimes & Dermer, P.C., 265 Ga. 374 (Ga. 1995) (establishes elements of legal malpractice and need for causation proof as to damages)
- Berman v. Rubin, 138 Ga. App. 849 (Ga. App. 1976) (expert standards governing professional conduct; ordinary care in malpractice)
- Cook v. Continental Casualty Co., 180 Wis. 2d 237 (Wis. App. 1993) (second-jury analysis in malpractice: assess what reasonable jury would do without negligence; expert on jury behavior irrelevant)
- Sotomayor v. TAMAI, LLC, 274 Ga. App. 323 (Ga. App. 2005) (restriction on bolstering ultimate issues with expert testimony when lay jury could reach same conclusion)
- Blackwell v. Potts, 266 Ga. App. 702 (Ga. App. 2004) (but-for causation standard in legal malpractice; two-stage inquiry)
- Ross v. Edwards, 253 Ga. App. 773 (Ga. App. 2002) (expert testimony admissibility in causation questions in malpractice actions)