Raines v. Maughan
312 Ga. App. 300
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Carrie Raines sued John Maughan, owner of the Venetian Hills complex, for wrongful death after her son was murdered in the parking lot.
- The Fulton County jury returned a defense verdict for Maughan.
- Raines appeals challenging the trial court's handling of a juror for-cause excusal, evidentiary rulings, a damages-apportionment instruction, and two proposed jury charges.
- The court reviews the proffered juror-qualification issue for abuse of discretion and defers to the trial court's credibility determinations.
- The court affirms, finding no reversible error in the trial court’s rulings on evidence, expert testimony, and jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion in not excusing the juror for cause | Raines contends the nephrologist could not be impartial | Maughan argues credibility and discretion supported not excusing | No abuse of discretion; juror credible and impartial |
| Whether a carjacking near the complex was admissible to prove foreseeability | Carjacking evidence shows foreseeability of crime near the complex | Differences in location and proximity render it not substantially similar | No abuse of discretion; not substantially similar to support foreseeability |
| Whether service call lists and related data could be admitted for expert reliance | Lists are probative to support security opinions | Content is hearsay and confusing; not substantially similar | Trial court did not abuse; expert could rely on data but lists themselves excluded |
| Whether expert testimony on foreseeability was required | Expert should opine foreseeability and proximate cause | jury could decide foreseeability without expert testimony | No error; jurors could determine foreseeability without or without expert testimony |
| Whether the court should have given separate jury charges on apportionment | Need for explicit apportionment instruction | Jury verdict for Maughan made apportionment instruction irrelevant | Harmless given defense verdict; no reversible error in apportionment instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinckney v. State, 285 Ga. 458 (2009) (proper exercise of discretion to excuse jurors)
- Sturbridge Partners v. Walker, 267 Ga. 785 (1997) (foreseeability; substantially similar crimes)
- Vega v. La Movida, Inc., 294 Ga.App. 311 (2008) (foreseeability analysis for premises liability)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 290 Ga.App. 541 (2008) (prior crimes on premises; similarity standard)
- McCoy v. Gay, 165 Ga.App. 590 (1983) (robberies near hotel not substantially similar to hotel parking lot robbery)
- Carlock v. Kmart Corp., 227 Ga.App. 356 (1997) (expert opinion on ultimate issues where jury can decide)
- Thurman v. Applebrook Country Dayschool, Inc., 278 Ga. 784 (2004) (expert testimony on ultimate issues admissible in appropriate cases)
- Grandma's Biscuits, Inc. v. Baisden, 192 Ga.App. 816 (1989) (prior crimes evidentiary limitations for foreseeability)
- Pacheco v. Regal Cinemas, 311 Ga.App. 224 (2011) (apportionment instruction analysis in similar context)
- Brookview Holdings v. Suarez, 285 Ga.App. 90 (2007) (summary judgment context; foreseeability expert discussion)