VINEYARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BAILEY Et Al.
343 Ga. App. 517
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On April 18, 2013, 17-year-old Antonia Bailey slipped and fell near a McDonald’s drink machine at a restaurant owned by Vineyard Industries; witnesses observed a recently mopped, wet area and at least one mop and a wet-floor sign elsewhere in the store.
- Antonia did not see a wet-floor sign in the area she walked from, was not distracted, and later was diagnosed with a torn meniscus and subsequent cartilage injuries requiring multiple surgeries and ongoing pain.
- Desta Bailey (parent/guardian) sued Vineyard for negligence; after a jury trial the court entered judgment for the Baileys: past medicals to parent, past and future medicals to Antonia, and $600,000 for pain and suffering, plus statutory interest.
- Vineyard appealed, raising (1) use of demonstrative trial boards/quotations in the Baileys’ opening statement, (2) exclusion of part of Vineyard’s human-factors expert’s testimony, and (3) that the pain-and-suffering award was excessive and unsupported.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion as to evidentiary rulings and for sufficient evidence supporting the jury verdict; it affirmed the judgment in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of demonstrative boards and deposition quotations in opening | Boards helped jurors follow expected proof; fair to read deposition excerpts. | Quotations were inconsistent with trial testimony and prejudicial. | No abuse of discretion; appellant failed to preserve boards in record, so court presumed admissibility; waived any objection to reading excerpts without contemporaneous objection. |
| Timeliness of objection to expert (motion in limine) | Baileys argued expert opinion should be excluded though objected on morning of trial. | Vineyard argued objection was untimely because after pretrial order. | No abuse of discretion: expert was disclosed late; pretrial order reserved right to challenge, and no final pretrial conference was shown, so trial court could hear motion. |
| Admissibility/foundation of human-factors expert opinion | Baileys: expert’s opinion lacked reliable application to facts and adequate foundation; jury can decide warning-effect without expert. | Vineyard: expert qualified and relied on literature; opinion would aid jury on effect of warnings. | Affirmed exclusion of the specific opinion: expert failed to show reliable application of methodology to Antonia’s facts and offered conclusions within common knowledge of jurors. |
| Excessiveness/sufficiency of pain-and-suffering damages | Baileys: evidence supported severe, ongoing pain, multiple surgeries, limitations, and future pain; award within jury province. | Vineyard: $600,000 was grossly excessive (13x special damages); jury ignored experts saying future surgery likely to relieve pain. | No reversal: substantial evidence supported past, present, and future pain; award not so excessive as to indicate bias or gross mistake. |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntee v. Deramus, 313 Ga. App. 653 (presumption in favor of jury verdict; view evidence for verdict)
- Tench v. Galaxy Appliance & Furniture Sales, Inc., 255 Ga. App. 829 (broad latitude for demonstratives in opening)
- Oglethorpe Power Corp. v. Sheriff, 210 Ga. App. 299 (trial court discretion over demonstratives)
- HNTB Ga., Inc. v. Hamilton-King, 287 Ga. 641 (appellate review—abuse of discretion—for expert qualification/exclusion)
- Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 283 Ga. 271 (same standard for expert testimony review)
- Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Knight, 299 Ga. 286 (party relying on expert must prove admissibility and helpfulness)
- AT Sys. Southeast, Inc. v. Carnes, 272 Ga. App. 671 (damage awards for pain and suffering governed by jurors’ enlightened conscience; heavy burden to overturn)
- Beam v. Kingsley, 255 Ga. App. 715 (appellate deference to jury on damages when record supports award)