301 Ga. 323
Ga.2017Background
- In July 2007 Joshua Martin and companions were approached by a large, gang-affiliated group while on Six Flags Over Georgia property; the group pursued and violently attacked Martin at a public Cobb County Transit (CCT) bus stop shortly after leaving the park, leaving him with catastrophic brain injuries.
- Evidence showed recurring gang activity at the park, gang-affiliated employees, prior gang-related incidents (including a prior drive-by shooting tied to a dispute that migrated from the park to a bus stop), and reports to park security that were insufficiently handled.
- A jury awarded $35 million and apportioned fault 92% to Six Flags and 2% each to four named assailants; Six Flags sought apportionment to additional, unnamed participants who were not convicted.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed liability but found error in pretrial apportionment rulings and ordered a full retrial; the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to address (1) Six Flags’ liability for the attack and (2) whether the apportionment error required a full retrial.
- The Supreme Court held Six Flags could be liable even though the final blows occurred off-premises because the attack was conceived and began on park property and was foreseeable from the park’s known gang problems; the Court declined to treat the bus stop as part of Six Flags’ "approaches."
- The Court ruled the trial court erred by excluding apportionment to certain nonparties, but that error requires retrial only on apportionment (not a full retrial), because liability and damages calculation may be segregated from apportionment among tortfeasors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Martin) | Defendant's Argument (Six Flags) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Six Flags can be liable for injuries completed off-premises when the attack began on its property | Six Flags owes ordinary-care duty to invitees; attack was planned and initiated on Six Flags property and thus its duty extends to foreseeable off-premises completion | Liability ends at property line; Six Flags lacked control over the public bus stop and thus cannot be held for off-premises injuries | Held for Martin: owner can be liable for injuries that culminate off-premises when attack began on premises and was foreseeable; victim’s stepping off property does not bar liability |
| Whether the CCT bus stop was part of Six Flags’ "premises and approaches" under OCGA § 51-3-1 | The bus stop and connecting public ways were effectively treated/controlled by Six Flags and served its patrons, so they fall within approaches | The bus stop is public, not contiguous/touching the park, Six Flags lacked dominion and control required to make it an approach | Held for Six Flags on this narrower point: the bus stop was not part of Six Flags’ approaches because Six Flags did not exercise sufficient dominion or control |
| Whether evidence supported foreseeability and proximate cause for on/off-premises liability | Park had recurring gang problems, prior similar incidents, employee gang affiliation, and security failures that made this attack foreseeable | Six Flags disputed scope of duty and contesting proximate cause on appeal (not pursued here) | Held for Martin: facts made the gang attack foreseeable; proximate cause and breach were affirmed (proximate-cause challenge not pursued further) |
| Whether trial court’s refusal to allow apportionment to certain nonparties requires a full retrial | Apportionment of additional nonparty fault can be corrected by retrial limited to apportionment; liability and damages calculation can stand | Court of Appeals said full retrial required; Six Flags urged allowing nonparty apportionment | Held: Error to exclude nonparty apportionment requires retrial only on apportionment (not full retrial); liability and damages findings may remain intact and only relative fault allocation retried |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Bailey, 254 Ga. 131 (discussion of construing evidence to support verdict)
- Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (1991) (landowner must exercise ordinary care to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts)
- Sturbridge Partners v. Walker, 267 Ga. 785 (1997) (foreseeability requirement for criminal-acts liability)
- Motel Properties v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484 (definition and limits of "approaches" and need for dominion/control)
- Wilks v. Piggly Wiggly Southern, 207 Ga. App. 842 (1993) (owner liable where assailants loitered on premises and followed victim offsite)
- Days Inns of America v. Matt, 265 Ga. 235 (premises liability for on-premises attack)
- Couch v. Red Roof Inns, 291 Ga. 359 (2012) (apportionment statute requires considering fault of all who contributed)
- Zaldivar v. Prickett, 297 Ga. 589 (2015) (nonparty fault means breach of legal duty that proximately caused injury)
- Head v. CSX Transportation, 271 Ga. 670 (1999) (discussion of when liability and damages are "inextricably joined" for retrial purposes)
- Double View Ventures v. Polite, 326 Ga. App. 555 (2014) (apportionment among multiple owners/actors; discussed and partially disapproved on full-retrial rule)