Patterson v. Long
321 Ga. App. 157
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Theresa Long's injury from a rollover of a customized three-wheeled motor trike led to a products liability arbitration.
- Arbitrator found Patterson 25% liable and Long 75% responsible; defect contributed to rollover.
- Damages for Long were $750,000 but reduced by 75% to $187,500 due to Long's conduct.
- Superior Court vacated the second arbitration award for manifest disregard of strict liability law.
- Appellate court reversed the vacation, held no manifest disregard; remanded with instruction to confirm award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did arbitrator manifestly disregard strict liability law? | Long: strict liability applied; damages should be full $750,000. | Patterson: law unclear; apportionment could be allowed if negligence applied. | No manifest disregard shown. |
| Was the manifest-disregard showing salvaged by transcripts or emails? | Emails show intent to apply strict liability and ignore apportionment. | Emails are ambiguous; not clear proof of intent to ignore law. | Not proven; no clear evidence of deliberate disregard. |
| Was vacating the second arbitration order proper under OCGA 9-9-13(b)(5)? | Arbitrator erred in applying negligence principles; vacatur appropriate. | Erroneous form or miscalculation alone; not manifest disregard; vacatur improper. | Superior Court erred in vacating; should confirm award. |
| May the court modify the award under OCGA 9-9-14(b) to increase damages? | Modification to reflect $750,000 damages permitted. | Modification would be substantive; only form/miscalculation adjustments allowed. | Modification not permitted; court should confirm as is. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hansen & Hansen Enterprises v. SCSJ Enterprises, 299 Ga. App. 469 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (manifest-disregard burden and prongs)
- Scana Energy Marketing v. Cobb Energy Mgmt. Corp., 259 Ga. App. 216 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (deference to arbitration awards)
- ABCO Builders v. Progressive Plumbing, 282 Ga. 308 (Ga. 2007) (two-prong manifest-disregard test; subjective prong need for intent)
- Montes v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 128 F.3d 1456 (11th Cir. 1997) (manifest disregard shown where law expressly ignored)
- Dan J. Sheehan Co. v. McCrory Constr. Co., 284 Ga. App. 159 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (absence of transcript limits manifest-disregard showing)