*1 733 jury] аny [punitive ruled to award damages], they “[i]f [the want[s] can award them in in verdict, the sum that is awarded we jury, plaintiff] find ... favor defendant [of dollars, in the amount of blank of which we include the amount of Thus, expenses.” blank dollars for medical the trial ruling court’s impossible made it jury specify for the punitive the amount of damages if punitive found damages appropriate.
Throughout colloquy рroper about form of the verdict approximately which consists of eight pages of transcript, Authority Ports acquiesced in the court’s ruling. Finally, after the jury was charged, plaintiff withdrew its objection to the form of the verdict. After the verdict was returned рlaintiff neither nor Authority the Ports objected to the form of the verdict. At point one during colloquy plaintiff suggested that the reason the Ports Authority willing was acquiesce in the trial ruling form of the verdict is because it appeal. would invite error on I am agree. inclined to It is well-settled party may that a acquiesce not in a ruling of the trial court complain and then of that ruling appeal. Clemens, Blaxton (415 v. 668, 202 App. 304) (1992). Ga. 669 SE2d For reason, to the extent that this decision and our decision in Petro lane Gas Svc. v. Eusery, (389 App. 355) (1989) 193 Ga. 860 SE2d al parties low to benefit from rulings they acquiesced in at trial those cases should specifically be limited to thеir facts be followed when the ruling of the trial court constitutes substantial error and is harmful as a matter of Ray Stinson, law. See (329 SE2d Bowеrs,
Michael J. Attorney General, Ballard, Jr., John B. Ro- Matson, land F. Senior Attorneys General, Assistant Ranitz, Maho- ney, Coolidge & Mahoney, Jr., Thоmas Mahoney, J. Thomas J. Ma- III, honey R. Stephen Flagler, for appellants. Fritts,
David H. Billy Moore, E. Miltiades, Shari S. appellee. A92A1504. FEISE еt al. v. CHEROKEE COUNTY al. et Presiding Judge. Birdsong,
In Feise v. Cherokee 294), we reversed a summary judgment county to the finding issues of fact whether there was a failure of a on law enforcement officers appellants, foreseeability
towards based on reasonable appellees be according would stalked Scott Kramer im- to his up” mediate threat daughter, “carve Feise and her which was re- ported police. Scott Kramer did slash Mrs. Feise with a knife home, yard day the front of her after his threats. certiorari,
On County’s remanded Cherokee *2 appeal for in light City Jordan, reconsideration of Rome v. of 861). In Supreme that case the Court held that en- law forcеment protect officials have no to a citizen unless there is a “special relationship” which apart sets the individual gen- from the public eral engenders “special duty” and a owed to that individual. The standards to question determine this by were estаblished that adoption “(1) requirements: of these explicit an by assurance the municipality, promises actions, through or that it would act on (2) behalf of injured party; the knowledge part on the of the munici- pality harm; and, (3) that inaction could lead to justifiаble and detri- by mental reliance the injured party on municipality’s the affirmative undertaking.” Id. at 29.
There is evidence requirement whiсh satisfies the (2), of standard knowledge part of law enforcement officials that inaction could lead to harm to But inaction, because of the officials’ stan- (1), explicit dard by an assurance the law enforcement agency, “through promisеs actions,” or it would act on behalf appel- of lees, (3), justifiable standard and detrimental reliance by the in- jured partiеs agency’s affirmative undertaking, cannot be satis- is, fied. That evidence shows that despite specific knowledge that prоbably inaction would lead to the law enforcement officials in this case nothing. Therefore, under the Supreme Court’s decision in City Jordan, Rome v. we must affirm the grant trial court’s of of summary judgment County. to Cherokee Judgment J., McMurray, J., P. Beasley, P. Cooper, affirmеd. Smith, JJ., Blackburn and Andrews, J., concur. concurs specially. Johnson, J., not participating. Pope, J.,C. disqualified.
Andrews, Judge, concurring specially.
I concur in majority’s the hоlding affirming the trial court’s of summary judgment Jordan, defendants. In City Rome of Supreme the Court held that a cause of action alleging рolice department’s a negligent pro- failure to tect a victim from by criminal assault a party, police third the have a legal duty protect to the victim special “where there is rela- a tionship between the [police] the which sеts the [victim] [victim] apart from the public and engenders special duty a owed to I agree standard, that under [the the victim].” defеndants were special in no Feise, relationship with Mrs. therefore the defendants special duty her from attack. had no Kramer’s by Supreme case was to this the This remanded court Court City in light Supreme Court’s decision in reconsideration of of Rome, suрra, adopted require in which the three “(1) special relationship: [po a an ments for assurance actions, prоmises department], lice or it on through would act injured party; part behalf of the [police on harm; and, (3) department] thаt inaction could lead to [police injured party department’s] on I undertaking.” Although affirmative concur I holding, cannot agree majority’s rigid application requirements with these hand.1 anonymous phone Mrs. Feise threatening feared the calls tо neighbors by Kramer, and her she proof. made had no She police suspicions, contacted with her and indicated that the calls if they as pay phone. sounded had been made from a police The public phones, checked local but were unable to find the The caller. police were unable to or detain arrest Kramer because had proof made he the threats. Under police took investigate phone actions threatening reasonable calls bаsed *3 given the information Mrs. There them Feise. was no as- to act surance on her behalf to Kramer because there was evidence he made the As to threats.
best, the defendants knew there was a threat not know who made the threats. there Aсcordingly, specific was no they reasonably action to take. In light pertaining failed there have could been no Mrs. undеrtaking. Feise on the defendants’ affirmative Lupa, Gerard J. appellants. for
Drew, Farnham, Mitchell, Eckl & William T. Theodore Free- man, facts, complete For a recitation of the see Feise v. Cherokee