McKissick v. AYDELOTT
307 Ga. App. 688
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- McKissick previously sued SOA and its president Aydelott for malicious prosecution and arrest; the initial grant of summary judgment for SOA/Aydelott was reversed in McKissick I, and the case proceeded to trial.
- At arbitration (november 2005) an award favored McKissick; on November 21, 2005 the parties executed a Release dismissing the 2004 action in exchange for the arbitrator’s award payment.
- The Release released SOA and The Cincinnati Insurance Company; it also stated the parties released all related claims against each other, including those known or unknown.
- In 2006, McKissick filed a new action against SOA and Aydelott for malicious prosecution and malicious arrest based on events surrounding the 2004 action and the Project at Perry High School.
- The trial court admitted the Release into evidence and instructed the jury accordingly; the jury, via special verdict, found against McKissick, and the trial court entered judgment on that verdict.
- McKissick appeals, arguing (1) the Release should not have been admitted against Aydelott individually, (2) res judicata barred evidence from the arbitration, and (3) the arbitration award should have been admitted for impeachment purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of challenge to release identification | McKissick preserved objection to individual liability release | McKissick waived by acquiescing to stipulation and verdict form | Waived; no reversible error on release admissibility |
| Res judicata and admissibility of arbitration issues | Arbitration resolved related monetary dispute; res judicata bars evidence | Arbitration did not involve the malicious-prosecution claims; not identical cause of action | No abuse of discretion; res judicata does not bar evidence |
| Admissibility of arbitration award for impeachment | Arbitration award could impeach witnesses on work quality | No showing of harm or relevance; award not dispositive of issues | No reversible error; impeachment value/unrelated to the pivotal issue lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Renshaw v. Feagin, 199 Ga.App. 148 (1991) (acquiescence to trial rulings forfeits appellate complaint)
- Bruno v. Evans, 200 Ga.App. 437 (1991) (waiver for failure to timely object to verdict form)
- Forsyth County v. Martin, 279 Ga. 215 (2005) (abuse of discretion standard for in limine rulings)
- Nannis Terpening & Assoc. v. Mark Smith Constr. Co., 171 Ga.App. 111 (1984) (arbitration awards are conclusive on matters submitted to arbitrators)
- Adams v. Carlisle, 278 Ga.App. 777 (2006) (probable-cause standard in malicious-prosecution analysis)