Williams v. Worsley

Citations: 510 S.E.2d 46; 235 Ga. App. 806; 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 183; 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 1541Docket: A98A0991

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; November 24, 1998; Georgia; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Alice and Allen Worsley filed a wrongful death suit against Thomas Williams, the father of Alice and the property owner where their 13-year-old daughter, Ashley, was electrocuted. The initial jury awarded $10,000, but the trial court granted a new trial on damages, deeming the amount inconsistent with evidence. In the second trial, the jury awarded $750,000. Williams appealed, raising several issues related to both trials.

The incident occurred when Ashley touched a chain that contacted a malfunctioning fluorescent light fixture in a shelter owned by Williams. The fixture was not grounded, and although the switch was engaged, the lights were not on at the time. Williams admitted he had failed to ground the fixture despite intending to do so.

Williams argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the standard of care owed to a licensee, claiming Ashley was merely on the property for her own enjoyment. However, the court found no evidence to substantiate this claim, rendering the request for such an instruction unauthorized.

Additionally, Williams contested the admission of expert testimony that the light fixture was negligently installed. The court upheld this testimony, noting that the average juror lacks knowledge of electrical installation standards, and expert opinions on ultimate issues of fact are permissible when they exceed jurors' understanding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions, finding no errors in the proceedings.

Williams contends that the trial court erred by determining that comparative negligence was not relevant in the first trial. He argues that had it been an issue, the court would not have been able to grant a new trial limited solely to damages. Despite Williams presenting affidavits from two jurors indicating that they considered the negligence of Ashley and the Worsleys, the court found that comparative negligence was not appropriately raised during the initial proceedings. Williams failed to include any allegations of negligence against Ashley or the Worsleys in his pleadings or the pretrial order. Even if some evidence suggested potential fault, Williams did not assert that comparative negligence principles applied, nor did the jury receive instructions to reduce the award based on any fault of the plaintiffs.

The trial court had approved the Worsleys' motion for a new trial only regarding damages due to the jury's inadequate verdict. Williams argues this was erroneous, but the court disagrees, acknowledging the challenges juries face in valuing human life, particularly that of a child. The jury must rely on its collective experience and consider factors such as the child's age, health, and family circumstances. Under Georgia law (OCGA § 51-12-12(b)), a court can grant a new trial solely on damages if the award is clearly inconsistent with the evidence. The initial jury's $10,000 award for Ashley's life was deemed insufficient given the evidence presented, which showed Ashley was a good student and well-behaved, with no evidence indicating he was unhealthy or unlikely to live a normal lifespan. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial limited to damages.

Williams argues that the trial court erred by not allowing him to amend his answer before the pretrial order of the second trial to include evidence related to comparative negligence from the first trial. He also contends the court improperly granted the Worsleys' motion in limine, limiting discussions on causation and negligence, which he claims denied him a fair trial. The court ruled that since a new trial was granted only on damages, further litigation on negligence was unnecessary, and Williams had the opportunity to raise comparative negligence in the first trial but did not.

Williams asserts that the trial court's decision to limit the new trial to damages violated his due process rights. However, the ruling was consistent with the Georgia statute OCGA 51-12-12(b), which permits a new trial solely on damages under certain conditions. 

Additionally, Williams challenges the admission of photographs of Ashley at the scene of his death, claiming they were irrelevant. The court found that evidence admissibility is at the trial court's discretion, and the photographs were at least marginally relevant. Even if deemed irrelevant, their admission was harmless as they were not gruesome or particularly inflammatory.

Williams also disputes the jury instruction regarding the valuation of Ashley's life, arguing it focused solely on his value to himself. The court acknowledged that while this instruction has faced criticism, it was ultimately not erroneous. The court also correctly instructed the jury on the full value of the deceased's life, leaving the determination of damages to the jury's judgment.

Finally, Williams' assertion regarding the denial of immediate review concerning the new trial for damages is deemed moot based on previous findings. The judgment was affirmed.