Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P.
301 Ga. 323
Ga.2017Background
- On July 3, 2007 Joshua Martin and companions waited near Six Flags Over Georgia’s main entrance for a county bus; a large, gang-affiliated group that had been causing disturbances in the park followed and attacked Martin at a nearby public bus stop, leaving him with catastrophic brain injuries.
- Evidence at trial showed recurring gang activity at Six Flags (employees with gang affiliation, gang tags, prior gang-related incidents) and a prior drive-by shooting that began after a park altercation; park security knew of disturbances and failed to eject or properly restrain the group earlier that night.
- A jury awarded $35 million and apportioned fault 92% to Six Flags and 2% to each of four convicted assailants; Six Flags appealed (and cross-appealed issues raised by Martin) to the Court of Appeals, which upheld liability but found error in pretrial apportionment rulings and ordered a full retrial.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) whether Six Flags could be liable for an attack that culminated off-premises and (2) whether the trial court’s apportionment error required a full retrial.
- The Supreme Court held Six Flags liable because the attack was conceived and in part executed on Six Flags property and was a foreseeable consequence of Six Flags’ failure to protect invitees; but the physical completion of the assault off-premises did not bar liability.
- The Court further held the apportionment error required retrial only on apportionment of fault (not a full retrial), because liability and total damages were properly decided and apportionment among additional tortfeasors is a separable step under OCGA § 51-12-33.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Martin) | Defendant's Argument (Six Flags) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Six Flags can be liable for injuries stemming from an attack that culminated off its property | Six Flags owed invitee duty; attack was conceived and began on Six Flags property and was foreseeable, so liability extends even though final injury occurred off-premises | Liability extinguished because physical assault occurred off Six Flags property (bus stop) outside premises/approaches | Held: Liability proper — duty extended because attack began on premises, was foreseeable, and stepping off property does not absolve Six Flags |
| Whether the CCT bus stop was part of Six Flags’ premises/approaches | Martin: Six Flags’ conduct around park (promoting transit, patrols, maintenance) made surrounding areas effectively part of approaches | Six Flags: No positive exercise of dominion or control over public road/bus stop; bus stop not contiguous or within “last few steps” | Held: Bus stop not part of premises/approaches — Six Flags lacked required control/dominion, but liability still attaches under foreseeability/proximate-cause rationale |
| Whether trial court erred by excluding non-party tortfeasors from apportionment | Martin: (argued below) exclusion proper because insufficient proof to apportion to unconvicted/nonparties | Six Flags: Trial court applied too strict a standard; apportionment statute requires considering fault of all who contributed, including nonparties | Held (assumed for purposes of appeal): Trial court erred in excluding certain nonparties (preservation issues treated separately); apportionment may include nonparties when evidence shows contribution |
| Whether the apportionment error requires a full retrial or only retrial on apportionment | Martin: Full retrial necessary because apportionment is integral to damages and liability determinations | Six Flags: Only apportionment of fault among additional tortfeasors should be retried; liability and total damages should stand | Held: Retrial limited to apportionment of fault only; liability and total damages need not be retried because those determinations are separable |
Key Cases Cited
- Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (Ga. 1991) (landowner must exercise ordinary care to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts)
- Sturbridge Partners v. Walker, 267 Ga. 785 (Ga. 1997) (foreseeability of similar prior crimes can establish duty)
- Wilks v. Piggly Wiggly Southern, 207 Ga. App. 842 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (landowner liable where assailants loitered on premises and followed victim off premises)
- Motel Props. v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484 (Ga. 1993) (definition and limits of “approaches” and need for dominion/control over public way)
- Days Inns of Am. v. Matt, 265 Ga. 235 (Ga. 1995) (hotel denial of summary judgment where assault occurred on premises)
- Couch v. Red Roof Inns, 291 Ga. 359 (Ga. 2012) (OCGA § 51-12-33 requires considering fault of all who contributed, including nonparties)
- Zaldivar v. Prickett, 297 Ga. 589 (Ga. 2015) (nonparty contribution requires breach of a legal duty that proximately caused injury)
- Head v. CSX Transp., 271 Ga. 670 (Ga. 1999) (previous rule that comparative negligence could make liability and damages inextricable, potentially precluding damages-only retrial)
- Double View Ventures v. Polite, 326 Ga. App. 555 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (discussed re: apportionment; to extent it required full retrial for apportionment error, court declined to follow)