Verdict - Summer 2017 - 24

> FEATURE STORY

The
Confusing Question
of Causation

in Criminal Attack Premises Liability Cases
BY GIL DEITCH, ANDREW ROGERS,
MICHAEL D'ANTIGNAC AND KARA PHILLIPS

N

early 30 years ago the Georgia Supreme
Court held that "whether proximate cause
exists in a given case is a mixed question of
law and fact."1 As the dissent pointed out in
Atlanta Obstetrics v. Coleman, however, the
court was no closer in 1990 to explaining,

or enabling practitioners' ability to anticipate a trial court's or
appellate court's rulings regarding proximate causation.
The current pattern jury instruction, though improved, provides little aid to judges, jurors, and attorneys alike:
Thus, what has frequently been determined to be "undeniably a jury question" has other times been determined a
"plain and undisputed case," which is then barred from a jury's
consideration by the trial court or then snatched from their
hands by an appellate court. The result is a mine field for the
thoughtful practitioner and sometimes a decade-long ordeal
for the injured plaintiff.
It remains the law in Georgia that "what amounts to proximate
cause is undeniably a jury question and is always to be determined on the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of
logic, common sense, justice, policy, and precedent."2 Thus, the
facts are the key to successfully navigating proximate cause.
The effective trial attorney must focus their time and effort on
marshaling the necessary facts.
In criminal attack premises liability cases in the current legal
climate in Georgia, the mixture of factual considerations by the

24

Georgia Trial Lawyers Association



Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Verdict - Summer 2017

President’s Message
Don’t Stop Fighting: Overcoming Obstacles Leads to Record Verdict in Camden County
Amazing Things Happen When Women Get Involved!
AAJ Addresses Top Concerns with Congress
Pro Bono Representation: A Bond Forged between a Naval Officer and Trial Lawyer
3 Tips for Defeating Daubert Motions
Common Issues to Stay on Guard in Cases Involving Tortious Security Officers
The Confusing Question of Causation in Criminal Attack Premises Liability Cases
Technology: Notetaking for the Digital Lawyer
New Lawyers’ Corner: 6 Questions for Verdict
Pope Langdale: Community Investments for a Cause
Case Updates: Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959
Workers’ Comp: Standard of Review — “Any Evidence” Rule
Thank You, Civil Justice PAC Contributors!
GTLA Champion Members
Welcome New GTLA Members!
Index to Advertisers/Advertiser.com
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Intro
Verdict - Summer 2017 - cover1
Verdict - Summer 2017 - cover2
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 3
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 4
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 5
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 6
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 7
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 8
Verdict - Summer 2017 - President’s Message
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Don’t Stop Fighting: Overcoming Obstacles Leads to Record Verdict in Camden County
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 11
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Amazing Things Happen When Women Get Involved!
Verdict - Summer 2017 - AAJ Addresses Top Concerns with Congress
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Pro Bono Representation: A Bond Forged between a Naval Officer and Trial Lawyer
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 15
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 3 Tips for Defeating Daubert Motions
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 17
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Common Issues to Stay on Guard in Cases Involving Tortious Security Officers
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 19
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 20
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 21
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 22
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 23
Verdict - Summer 2017 - The Confusing Question of Causation in Criminal Attack Premises Liability Cases
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 25
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 26
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 27
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Technology: Notetaking for the Digital Lawyer
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 29
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 30
Verdict - Summer 2017 - New Lawyers’ Corner: 6 Questions for Verdict
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 32
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 33
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Pope Langdale: Community Investments for a Cause
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 35
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Case Updates: Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 37
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Workers’ Comp: Standard of Review — “Any Evidence” Rule
Verdict - Summer 2017 - 39
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Thank You, Civil Justice PAC Contributors!
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Welcome New GTLA Members!
Verdict - Summer 2017 - Index to Advertisers/Advertiser.com
Verdict - Summer 2017 - cover3
Verdict - Summer 2017 - cover4
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0318
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0218
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0118
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0417
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0317
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0217
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0117
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0416
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0316
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0216
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0116
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0415
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0315
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0215
https://www.nxtbook.com/naylor/GTLQ/GTLQ0115
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0113
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0412
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0312
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0212
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0112
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0411
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0311
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0211
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0111
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/GTLQ0410
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com