Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.A. v. Coleman

• Decision Date: 29 November 1990
• Docket Number: No. S90G0719,S90G0719
• Citation: 398 S.E.2d 16,260 Ga. 569
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: ATLANTA OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY GROUP, P.A. v. COLEMAN, et al.

Page 16

398 S.E.2d 16

260 Ga. 569

ATLANTA OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY GROUP, P.A. v. COLEMAN, et al.

No. S90G0719.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 29, 1990.

Robert P. Monyak, Daryll Love, Love & Willingham, Atlanta, for Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group.

L. Lin Wood, Jr., Wood & Grant, Wayne Grant, Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Gambrell, Clarke, Anderson & Stolz, Atlanta, for Coleman.

Seaton D. Purdom, Gambrell, Clarke, Anderson & Stolz, Benjamin S. Williams, Bennett, Williams & Henry, Atlanta, for appellees.

G. Conley Ingram, Alston & Bird, Richard L. Greene, Medical Ass'n of Georgia, Dow N. Kirkpatrick II, Alston & Bird, Atlanta, amici curiae.

CLARKE, Chief Justice.

Ms. Coleman brought this medical malpractice action to recover for injuries she suffered from a stroke following an abortion. The jury returned a verdict against two of Ms. Coleman's doctors. The trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of one of the doctors, Dr. Hutchinson, finding the record devoid of evidence that his conduct was the proximate cause of Ms. Coleman's injuries. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Dr. Hutchinson's negligence initiated the chain of events that resulted in the injury. Coleman v. Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.A., 194 Ga.App. 508, 390 S.E.2d 856 (1990). We granted certiorari to consider the Court of Appeals opinion in light of McAuley v. Wills, 251 Ga. 3, 303 S.E.2d 258 (1983), where we held that a specified act of negligence was too remote as a matter of law to constitute proximate cause.

To recover damages in a tort action, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligence was both the "cause in fact" and the "proximate cause" of the injury. The requirement of proximate cause constitutes a limit on legal liability; it is a "policy decision ... that, for a variety of reasons, e.g., intervening act, the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury are too remote for the law to countenance recovery." McAuley, supra, at 7, 303 S.E.2d 258. Although many legal scholars have attempted to lay down a single standard to determine proximate causation, see generally, Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th ed., § 42 at pp. 276-279 (1984), no satisfactory universal formula has emerged. Instead, proximate cause "... 'is always to be determined on the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, justice, policy and precedent.... The best use that can be made of the authorities on proximate cause is merely to furnish illustrations of situations which judicious men upon careful consideration have adjudged to be on one side of the line or the other.' Foundations of Legal Liability, Vol. 1, p. 110 (1906)." McAuley, supra, at 9, 303 S.E.2d 258 (Weltner, J., dissenting).

Thus, whether proximate cause exists in a given case is a mixed question of law and fact. It requires both fact-finding in the "what happened" sense, and an evaluation of whether the facts measure up to the legal standard set by precedent. Ordinarily, both determinations are most appropriately made by a jury upon appropriate instructions from the judge. McAuley, supra. The decision may be made by the trial judge or appellate court only if reasonable persons could not differ as to both the relevant facts and the evaluative application of legal standards (such as the legal concept of "foreseeability") to the facts. In other words, "[a]lthough what amounts to proximate cause is undeniably a jury question, it will be determined by the court as a matter of law in plain and undisputed cases. [Cits.]" McAuley, supra, at 7, 303 S.E.2d 258.

The case presently before the court is simply not a "plain and undisputed" case. The record is replete with factual disputes regarding both the cause in fact and the legal inferences to be drawn from those facts. ¹ There is a great deal of evidence in the record that might suggest that Dr. Hutchinson's treatment was not a cause in fact or that other causes preponderated to cause Ms. Coleman's injuries. However, in reviewing a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who secured the jury verdict. Pendley v. Pendley, 251 Ga. 30, 302 S.E.2d 554 (1983). A judgment notwithstanding the verdict may not be granted because the strength or weight of the evidence is on one side. Findley v. McDaniel, 158 Ga.App. 445, 280 S.E.2d 858 (1981).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the jury in this case was authorized to conclude that Dr. Hutchinson should reasonably have known that a woman who was trying to become pregnant might already be pregnant. He was negligent in administering a hormone shot to a pregnant woman. This negligence directly caused Ms. Coleman to undergo an abortion procedure that would otherwise have been unnecessary. Further, the evidence authorized the jury to conclude that the events that followed the first abortion procedure were unusual, but entirely foreseeable complications that are attendant to that medical procedure.

This case, in its simplest terms, involves foreseeable complications relating to abortion procedures that would not have been necessary if not for Dr. Hutchinson's negligent administration of a hormone shot. The record is not devoid of evidence that Dr. Hutchinson's negligence was the proximate cause of Ms. Coleman's injuries. The jury's verdict must be restored.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except SMITH, P.J., and WELTNER and BELL, JJ., who concur specially.

WELTNER, Justice, concurring specially.

In this case, the Court of Appeals held:

[T]he intervening causes which contributed to the injury were not unrelated to the act of Dr. Hutchinson but were reasonably required for medical treatment of Dr. Hutchinson's unskillful treatment, and, in turn, reasonably required for the unskillful treatment rendered in response to Dr. Hutchinson's treatment. [Id. 194 Ga.App. at 511, 390 S.E.2d 856.]

We granted certiorari to consider the Court of Appeals opinion in the light of McAuley v. Wills, 251 Ga. 3, 303 S.E.2d 258 (1983), where we held that a specified act of negligence was too "remote," as a matter of law, to constitute "proximate cause" and that there could be no recovery. ²

The Existing Law

1. The following propositions are significant to the resolution of this case:

(a) Causation, or cause "in fact," is the determination that the defendant's acts caused a claimed injury. Causation is of necessity a factual inquiry.

(b) Causation differs from that which we have called "proximate cause," "foreseeability" and "remoteness." In practical terms, these words form the basis for a policy determination relative to the permissibility of recovery. ³

[A] holding that a defendant's conduct is not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury does not constitute a determination that the defendant's conduct is not a cause in fact of the plaintiff's injury, but rather is in the nature of a policy decision by the court that, for a variety of reasons, e.g., intervening act, the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury are too remote for the law to countenance a recovery. As pointed out by Professor Prosser in his treatise, the proximate-cause rubric has been used as another way of saying, among other things, that the defendant was under no duty to protect the plaintiff from the injury which in fact occurred. [Cit.] [McAuley, supra, at 7, 303 S.E.2d 258.]

(c) Under the present rule, "proximate cause" must be determined by a jury "except in plain and undisputed cases." ⁴

The Problem

2. There were two dissents in McAuley, which, along with the majority opinion, recognized the inherent difficulty of appellate review of such subjective concepts as "remoteness," "proximate," and "foreseeability." That this is nothing new is seen from several expressions of our appellate courts. ⁵ The circumlocutions of an earlier day concerning "proximate cause" are with us still, reinforcing Chief Judge (later Chief Justice) Russell's observations of 77 years ago:

A court can no more determine upon an issue as to what particular act or circumstance was the proximate cause of an alleged injury than it can determine that the same particular act was an act of negligence. [White v. Seaboard Air-Line Railway, 14 Ga.App. 139, 80 S.E. 667 (1913).]

A Solution

3. We are not, however, forever bound to the confabulations and confusions of the past. Instead, we need to make proper allocations of functions between court and jury.

(a) We should recognize that the requisite connecting link between negligence and damages--what we have called "proximate cause"--is an issue exclusively of fact. ⁶

(b) In considering the existence vel non of "causation," the jury should determine whether negligence of a defendant was a cause--as a matter of fact--of damages to the plaintiff. If it finds causation, the jury then will determine whether or not to allow recovery; or whether, because of factors that in the past we have called a want of "foreseeability," or "remoteness," it will deny recovery.

(c) Stated differently, "remoteness," "proximate cause," and "foreseeability" should be the factual concerns of a jury, and not the legal concerns of the court.

4. (a) As findings of fact, these determinations are properly within the exclusive province of the jury, and should not be reviewed as a matter of law, except as set out below.

(b) Appellate courts should review a finding of "causation" only to assure that it is supported by evidence, and that the trial court properly charged the jury concerning the jury's responsibilities. A court should not substitute its judgment for that of the jury as to "remoteness," "proximate cause," and "foreseeability." McAuley v. Wills, supra, and our other authorities that are inconsistent with this holding should be disapproved.

Disposition of this...