Turnage v. Kasper
307 Ga. App. 172
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Kasper sued Turnage and Penton for malicious prosecution, IIED, and defamation after Kasper’s arrest for aggravated stalking following a bus-stop incident while retrieving her children.
- A Cobb County jury awarded Kasper damages on all claims, plus attorney fees, totaling $210,500; judgment was entered jointly and severally against Appellants.
- Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for liability on several claims and the form of the verdict, including potential double recovery for malicious prosecution and IIED.
- The events center on a long-running neighbor dispute in the Applegate subdivision, where Turnage and Penton monitored Kasper’s family, recorded her activities, and advocated for her arrest.
- Turnage and Penton actively pressured police to pursue aggravated-stalking charges, using photo and audio evidence to obtain an arrest warrant, despite Kasper’s conduct not being directed at them.
- The trial court denied post-verdict motions; the Court of Appeals affirms for Turnage on all claims, affirms malicious-prosecution and IIED against Penton, but reverses defamation against Penton and remands for a damages-only retrial against Turnage on defamation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence to support liability for malicious prosecution and conspiracy? | Kasper relied on Turnage and Penton’s joint instigation. | Officer independence negates instigation; no probable cause lacking. | Yes, substantial evidence supported conspiracy and instigation of arrest. |
| Was the IIED claim supported by extreme and outrageous conduct? | Conduct surrounding arrest and harassment caused severe distress. | Actions were provocative but not outrageous as a matter of law. | Yes, evidence supported a jury finding of IIED. |
| Was Turnage liable for defamation and was Penton properly liable for defamation? | Turnage’s statements to neighbor imputed crime; conspiracy with Penton supported. | Turnage’s statements were invited; Penton did not conspire or participate. | Defamation against Turnage sustained; defamation against Penton reversed; remand for Turnage damages. |
| Does the record show impermissible double recovery for malicious-prosecution and IIED damages? | Damages separate in nature; both awards justified. | Potential overlap requires reversal of one award. | No double-recovery; damages upheld for both theories. |
| What about defamation damages and remittitur on the Turnage/Penton verdicts? | Damages proper as awarded. | Penton’s liability insufficient; damages allocated improperly. | Reverse as to Penton; remand for Turnage damages on defamation; affirm other aspects. |
Key Cases Cited
- NAACP v. Overstreet, 221 Ga. 16 (1965) (conspiracy may be inferred from acts and relationships; joint liability possible)
- Wolf Camera v. Royter, 253 Ga. App. 254 (2002) (distinguishes between instigation and mere reporting to authorities)
- Lusk v. North Georgia RR Co., 277 Ga. 245 (2003) (double-recovery doctrine and how to assess damages when multiple torts overlap)
- Esprit Log & Timber Frame Homes v. Wilcox, 302 Ga. App. 550 (2010) (jury may award separate damages for distinct tort theories under appropriate evidence)
- King v. Masson, 148 Ga. App. 229 (1978) (defamation per se; invitation defense considerations)