Verdict - Summer 2017 - 25
60.200
speculation. Moreover, in numerous
Torts: Proximate Cause; Definition
cases, we have "reiterated the prin-
Proximate cause means that cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence,
produces an event, and without which cause such event would not have occurred. In
order to be a proximate cause, the act or omission complained of must be such that
a person using ordinary care would have foreseen that the event, or some similar
event, might reasonably result therefrom. There may be more than one proximate
cause of an event, but if an act or omission of any person not a party to the suit was
the sole proximate cause of an occurrence, then no act or omission of any party
could have been a proximate cause.
When I use the expression "proximate cause," I mean a cause that, in the natural
or ordinary course of events, produced the plaintiff's injury. [It need not be the only
cause, nor the last or nearest cause. It is sufficient if it combines with another cause
resulting in the injury.] (Use the bracketed part if there is evidence of a concurring
of contributing cause to the injury or death.) Illinois v. Wilson, 935 NE2d 587 (2010)
O.C.G.A. $$51-12-3, 51-12-8, 51-12-9
Torts
ciple that questions of negligence and
causation, except in plain, palpable, and
indisputable cases, are solely for jury
determination. And the foregoing evidence simply renders this case not within
the "indisputable" category. 5
The practical application of these principles again requires the trial attorney to
dauntlessly conduct discovery in a manner
that seeks every shred of evidence to support
every element of the claim.
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
The question of comparative negligence turns
on the concept of ordinary care, which the
Updated January 2017
5
Georgia Supreme Court addressed in the context of a criminal attack case in Lau's Corp.,
Inc. v. Haskins in 1991 and the Georgia Court
jury and the legal concerns of the courts most
is too "speculative" to prove causation,
of Appeals applied to a better set of facts in
often come to an unpredictable head on the
as Martin presented no expert testi-
Jackson v. Post Prop, Inc. in 1999:
related issues of foreseeability, comparative
mony on security-gang issues. But Six
"Exactly what constitutes 'ordinary
negligence, and apportionment.
Flags provides no legal authority even
care' varies with the circumstances
remotely suggesting that a plaintiff
and the magnitude of the danger to be
FORESEEABILITY
cannot show causation in a premises-
guarded against. Since it is impossible
"[T]he landowner's duty 'extends only to
liability case without expert testimony. 4
to prescribe definite rules in advance
foreseeable criminal attacks.'"3 Establishing
Rather, the causal link between the duty
for every combination of circumstances
foreseeability sufficient to convince the trial
arising from foreseeability in criminal attack
which may arise, the details of the stan-
judge, jury, and appellate courts will turn upon
premises liability cases begins and ends with
dard must be filled in each particular
the facts. The task before the trial lawyer is to
the facts, as the Court of Appeals concluded
case. But, to be negligent, the conduct
draw out all the facts pertinent to the case in
in Six Flags:
must be unreasonable in light of the rec-
discovery and then carefully point the courts
Here there was evidence that Six Flags
ognizable risk of harm." Whether a party
to the proper application of law to those facts.
ignored Officer Herman's advice to
has failed to exercise ordinary care may
Fundamentality, the issue of foreseeability
provide security near the CCT bus stop
be decided by the court only in cases in
is a question of duty, however, the age-old
during all operating hours. In addition,
which "undisputable, plain and palpable
cry of "too speculative!" is often raised in
the same gang members, including at
facts exist on which reasonable minds
the foreseeability context. Further, recent
least one Six Flags employee, threatened
could not differ as to the conclusion to
defense efforts have been focused on requir-
and terrorized two families earlier on the
be reached."6
ing that a security expert must establish the
same day when they violently attacked
In Jackson, the Court of Appeals found
causal link between the duty arising from the
Martin, and although Six Flags was
that the plaintiff and defendant were equally
foreseeable harm, and ultimately the causa-
aware of the incident, it refused to eject
aware of the risk of third-party criminal
tion of the plaintiff's injuries. Under Georgia
them from the park. And as discussed
attack. Specifically, the court noted the
law, the suggestion that a security expert is
supra, Six Flags was keenly aware of
plaintiff had previously been the victim of
required in premises liability cases is simply
the serious gang problem and criminal
an unsolved burglary and had knowledge
a red herring:
activity that occurred in and around its
of another tenant being raped in a ground
Six Flags also argues that Martin's
premises. Further, there appears to be
floor apartment.
"theory of causation" is too speculative.
no evidence of any efforts that Six Flags
Despite these facts, the Court of Appeals
Specifically, Six Flags contends that
made to address these pressing issues.
sorted carefully through the record to deter-
Martin's "laundry list" of the missed
The foregoing evidence of causation,
mine "whether the plaintiff could have taken
security measures resulting in his attack
then, is specific and does not require
any action in the exercise of ordinary care to
Summer 2017 25
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