Raines v. Maughan
312 Ga. App. 303
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Carrie Raines sued John Maughan for wrongful death of her son, alleging premises liability for failing to keep Venetian Hills safe.
- Jury returned a verdict for Maughan; Raines appeals alleging several trial errors.
- Issues include: failure to excuse a prospective juror for cause, exclusion of certain evidence, an apportionment instruction, and requested jury charges.
- Raines sought to admit evidence of a nearby carjacking to prove foreseeability of crime at Venetian Hills.
- Raines sought to admit service call lists reflecting police responses to the area, and expert testimony on foreseeability and proximate cause.
- Trial court admitted some evidence and excluded others; the court instructed on potential apportionment, which became moot as there was a defense verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juror for cause should have been excused | Raines contends the nephrologist could not be credible given his views and nondisclosure. | Trial court properly exercised discretion; juror credible and would follow court instructions. | No abuse of discretion; juror not excused. |
| Admission of evidence of a carjacking near the complex | Carjacking shows foreseeability of crime near Venetian Hills. | Not sufficiently similar in location/proximity to be admissible for foreseeability. | Reversed: evidence not substantially similar; trial court not abusively excluding. |
| Admissibility of service call lists and expert reliance on them | Lists underpin expert security opinions on adequacy of security. | Lists contain hearsay, irrelevant data, and are too confusing for jury. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed by prejudice; exclusion affirmed. |
| Expert testimony on foreseeability and proximate cause | Experts should opine foreseeability and proximate cause as ultimate issues. | Jury can decide with lay and other evidence; expert opinions on ultimate issues unnecessary. | No error; jury capable of deciding foreseeability and proximate cause without expert testimony on these ultimate issues. |
| Jury instruction on apportionment of damages | Should apportion damages between Maughan and unknown attackers. | No substantial impact since verdict was for Maughan; issue not remediable. | Harmless error; no effect on outcome; no reversal needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. State, 309 Ga. App. 454 (Ga. App. 2011) (trial court credibility assessment of jurors)
- Vega v. La Movida, Inc., 294 Ga. App. 311 (Ga. App. 2008) (foreseeability; substantially similar prior crimes for premises liability)
- Sturbridge Partners v. Walker, 267 Ga. 785 (Ga. 1997) (test for substantial similarity of prior crimes for foreseeability)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 290 Ga. App. 541 (Ga. App. 2008) (quantity and proximity of prior incidents related to foreseeability)
- Carlock v. Kmart Corp., 227 Ga. App. 356 (Ga. App. 1997) (expert may address ultimate issues where appropriate; jury can decide foreseeability without expert on some cases)
- Pacheco v. Regal Cinemas, 311 Ga. App. 224 (Ga. App. 2011) (apportionment instruction reviewed in defense-ward cases)
- Brookview Holdings v. Suarez, 285 Ga. App. 90 (Ga. App. 2007) (summary judgment; not addressing trial admission of expert testimony on foreseeability)
- Grandma’s Biscuits, Inc. v. Baisden, 192 Ga. App. 816 (Ga. App. 1989) (prior crimes on police printouts; substantial similarity required)
- Pinckney v. State, 285 Ga. 458 (Ga. 2009) (trial court discretion in evaluating juror impartiality)
- Kersey v. Williamson, 284 Ga. 660 (Ga. 2008) (harmful error standard for trial court rulings)