SCARPACI Et Al. v. KAUFMAN Et Al.
328 Ga. App. 446
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Parents of minor Aubrey Garrett sued several ophthalmologists and Thomas Eye Group for medical malpractice after the child lost vision following premature birth; a jury returned a defense verdict and the parents appealed.
- During voir dire, Juror No. 5 disclosed she was a health professional (a rehabilitation nurse of ~30 years), a patient of a Thomas Eye Group doctor, and stated she was "leaning" toward the defense and could not be fair and impartial.
- Juror No. 5 repeatedly expressed that she would require proof beyond the legal preponderance standard and would be "reluctant" to award damages beyond medical costs, though at points she said she could follow the court's instructions.
- The Garretts moved to strike Juror No. 5 for cause; the trial court denied the motion after follow-up questioning by the court and counsel aimed at rehabilitation.
- On appeal the Georgia Court of Appeals held the trial court manifestly abused its discretion by failing to strike Juror No. 5 for cause because her initial plain, under-oath statement of inability to be impartial was never sufficiently retracted or rehabilitated by follow-up questioning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Juror No. 5 should have been struck for cause for bias toward defendants | Juror No. 5 plainly said she could not be fair, leaned to defense, demanded "overwhelming" proof, and was reluctant to award damages — she should be excused | Follow-up questioning showed she could set aside leanings, follow judge's instructions, and apply preponderance standard | Reversed: juror should have been struck; court abused discretion because impartiality was not re-established |
| Whether juror's status as a patient of a defendant required excusal | Juror's connections compounded bias; supports excusal | Being a patient alone does not mandate excusal and was not the primary stated bias | Court: patient relationship alone insufficient; bias here was professional, not patient-based |
| Whether juror's comments about damages justified excusal | Juror's reluctance to award non-medical damages showed inability to follow law | Juror said she could follow the court's charge on damages | Court: concerns about damages alone do not require excusal, but here they accompanied unrescinded bias and supported striking |
| Whether a court can rehabilitate a juror with a "talismanic" question | Asking if juror can set aside feelings is insufficient when juror previously asserted inability to be impartial | Rehabilitation questions may suffice when answers show genuine willingness to follow law | Court: cannot rely on a single talismanic question; rehabilitation failed here because juror never retracted her fixed bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Stolte v. Fagan, 291 Ga. 477 (trial jurors must be free from bias)
- Guoth v. Hamilton, 273 Ga. App. 435 (rehabilitation inquiry and trial court discretion)
- Elliott v. Home Depot U. S. A., 275 Ga. App. 865 (partiality standard for cause challenges)
- Cambron v. State, 164 Ga. 111 (principle of absolute impartiality of jurors)
- Poole v. State, 291 Ga. 848 (rehabilitation must be supported by evidence elicited in voir dire)
- Brown v. Columbus Doctors Hosp., 277 Ga. App. 891 (rambling answers do not establish impartiality)
- Foster v. State, 258 Ga. App. 601 (court should limit further questioning when juror plainly says cannot be impartial)
- Ivey v. State, 258 Ga. App. 587 (manifest abuse when court relies solely on extracted statements of impartiality)
- Zwiren v. Thompson, 276 Ga. 498 (preponderance standard in medical malpractice)
- Haughton v. Canning, 287 Ga. App. 28 (elements required to prove medical malpractice)
- Cohen v. Baxter, 267 Ga. 422 (doctor-patient relationship alone does not mandate juror excusal)
- Wood v. B&S Enterprises, 314 Ga. App. 128 (juror reservations about issues, not parties, may permit service)