Martin v. Six Flags Over Ga. II, L.P.
Decision Date | 05 June 2017 |
Docket Number | S16G0743,S16G0750 |
Citation | 801 S.E.2d 24 |
Parties | MARTIN v. SIX FLAGS OVER GEORGIA II, L.P., et al. Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P., et al. v. Martin. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Andrew Timothy Rogers, Gilbert H. Deitch, DEITCH & ROGERS, LLC, 5881 Glenridge Drive, Plaza 400, Suite 160, Atlanta, Georgia 30028, Naveen Ramachandrappa, Michael Brian Terry, Benjamin Williams Thorpe, BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP, 1201 West Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 3900, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3417, Michael Lawson Neff, Timothy Shane Peagler, THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LAWSON NEFF, P.C., 945 E. Paces Ferry Road, Suite 1770, Atlanta, Georgia 30326, for Appellant in S16G0743.
Laurie Webb Daniel, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, Suite 2000, One Atlantic Center, 1180 West Peachtree Street, Suite 1800, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3400, Vernon Markice Strickland, Wargo & French LLP, 999 Peachtree Street, 26th Floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, for Appellee in S16G0743.
Laurie Webb Daniel, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, Suite 2000, One Atlantic Center, 1180 West Peachtree Street, Suite 1800, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3400, Vernon Markice Strickland, Wargo & French LLP, 999 Peachtree Street, 26th Floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, for Appellant in S16G0750.
Martin Adam Levinson, HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, 303 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4000, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Garret Warrington Meader, DREW ECKL & FARNHAM LLP, 777 Gloucester Street, Suite 305, Brunswick, Georgia 31520, William V. Custer, IV, Julia Lynn Fenwick, BRYAN CAVE LLP, One Atlantic Center, Fourteenth Floor, 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30309, for Amicus Appellant in S16G0750.
Andrew Timothy Rogers, Gilbert H. Deitch, DEITCH & ROGERS, LLC, 5881 Glenridge Drive, Plaza 400, Suite 160, Atlanta, Georgia 30028, Naveen Ramachandrappa, Michael Brian Terry, Benjamin Williams Thorpe, BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP, 1201 West Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 3900, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3417, Michael Lawson Neff, Timothy Shane Peagler, THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LAWSON NEFF, P.C., 945 E. Paces Ferry Road, Suite 1770, Atlanta, Georgia 30326, for Appellee in S16G0750.
Joshua Martin sustained life-changing injuries in a brutal attack at a bus stop outside the Six Flags Over Georgia amusement park in
July 2007. A jury determined that Six Flags1 was liable for those injuries, along with the four named individual defendants who perpetrated the attack; as set out by the jury on its verdict form, the trial court apportioned the jury's $35 million verdict2 between the parties, assigning 92% against Six Flags and 2% each against the four assailants. On cross-appeals by Six Flags and Martin, a majority of the twelve-member Court of Appeals found no error in the jury's determination regarding Six Flags' liability but concluded that the trial court had erred in its pretrial rulings regarding apportionment of fault, necessitating a full retrial. Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P. v. Martin , 335 Ga.App. 350, 780 S.E.2d 796 (2015). We granted certiorari to determine (1) whether Six Flags could properly be held liable for the injuries inflicted in this attack; and (2) assuming liability was proper, whether the trial court's apportionment error does indeed require a full retrial.
For the first question, regarding the contours of premises liability, we agree that the jury was authorized to find Six Flags liable for the breach of its duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping its premises safe for invitees, although for a different reason than that articulated by the Court of Appeals. Because the attack that caused Martin's injuries began while both he and his assailants were on Six Flags property, Six Flags' liability is not extinguished simply because Martin stepped outside the property's boundaries while attempting to distance himself from his attackers.
As to the second question, we conclude that the trial court's apportionment error does not require a full retrial, but rather requires retrial only for the apportionment of damages. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it held that a full retrial is required, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Construing the evidence to support the jury's verdict, see Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Haskins , 254 Ga. 131, 136 (1), 327 S.E.2d 192 (1985), the record establishes the following facts. On July 3, 2007, Martin went to Six Flags for the day with his brother, Gerard Martin, and a friend, Devon Carter. As the park's closing time approached, the trio exited the park, walked to a nearby hotel to use the bathroom, and returned to Six Flags property in front of the park entrance to await the arrival of a Cobb County Transit (CCT) bus. The three sat on a guardrail in an area adjacent to the park's main entrance along Six Flags Parkway, the roadway leading into the park. The bus stop, which was visible from the guardrail, was situated just around the corner of the intersection of Six Flags Parkway and another public road, some 200 or so feet from the Six Flags property line.
During the course of the day and early evening, a throng of young men were roaming the park. Throughout the day their numbers ranged from 15 to 40. The young men in the group, which included several off-duty Six Flags employees, were dressed similarly, most in some combination of white or black T-shirts, jeans, and bandanas. The men were observed running through the park, yelling obscenities, and otherwise causing commotion. In the early evening, park patrons John Tapp and Eric Queen, who were visiting the park with their families, were accosted by the group after one of its members nearly knocked over Queen's young son. Tapp testified that, after he diverted the near-collision and admonished the man who was running, approximately 15 men surrounded him and Queen, "fixing to beat the sh*t out of us." The confrontation lasted five to ten minutes, until park security appeared. As security approached and the group began to back off, they made "finger gun" gestures and admonished Tapp and Queen to "watch your back," "we'll get you in the parking lot." Tapp and Queen reported to the security officer what had happened, including the parking lot threat. The officers confronted the assailants they could locate, reprimanded them, and released them back into the park. A Six Flags security officer testified at trial that this response was contrary to Six Flags' policy, under which the assailants should have been ejected from the park.
Shortly before closing time, as the Tapp and Queen families prepared to exit through the park's main gates, they noticed the same group of men, whose numbers had grown to approximately 40. Surveillance video footage filmed at that time showed a group of similarly-dressed men running to the front gate in what one witness described as a "frenzy." The group exited the park, followed by security guards, who then stood outside watching. Once the guards reentered the park, the families, believing the group had left, exited the gates towards the parking lot, only to find the same group congregated on the sidewalk, outside the gates but still on Six Flags property. Despite their efforts to be inconspicuous, the families were spotted by the group, who began following the families and yelling at them. Alarmed, the families hurried to their cars; Tapp heard one man say "drop the hammer," which Tapp believed was a reference to a gun. The families reached their cars and were able to depart without further incident.
The group of young men then made their way back to the area outside the park's main gate where Martin and his companions were sitting. Two members of the group testified that others within the group were actively planning a fight. One stated that when he met up with the group he "found out that they were going to fight people at the bus stop"; another said that he heard the group planning for the beating and that the group "knew they needed to fight somebody." Aware of the group's presence, and overhearing talk to the effect that "some guy's going to get messed up," Martin and his companions got up from the rail to move away, proceeding towards the bus stop. The group followed the trio to the bus stop, where, without any provocation or delay, defendant Franklin approached Martin and began beating him with brass knuckles. Others among the group joined in on the attack, with one witness estimating that nine people participated in Martin's beating. This same witness testified that the attack began only five minutes after the group concluded their pursuit of the Tapp and Queen families; Franklin, similarly, testified that "it happened so fast." Carter and Martin's brother Gerard were also victims in the attack. The beating and stomping inflicted on Martin rendered him comatose for seven days, and resulted in debilitating permanent brain damage and other injuries.
The ensuing police investigation revealed that the assailants were affiliated with a gang-like group called the "YGL," and other evidence established that the park was routinely the site of gang congregation and activity. Multiple witnesses testified to the presence of gang members at the park, both as patrons and employees; one witness, who was himself a Six Flags employee, testified that the "majority" of Six Flags' park employees were affiliated with one gang or another. Evidence of gang "tags" and similar graffiti in the male employees' locker room, and the testimony of a Cobb County police officer who worked off-duty as a park security officer, indicated that Six Flags' management was—or should have been—aware that many of its employees were gang members. A Six Flags security officer testified that, during the park's daily security briefings, gang-related issues were reported, on average, at least once a week. Following the attack on Martin, one Six Flags employee was reprimanded by her superiors after reporting to the media that gang...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC
...(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Johnson , supra, 276 Ga. at 273 (3), 578 S.E.2d 106.14 Compare Martin v. Six Flags Over Ga. II, L.P. , 301 Ga. 323, 332 (II) (A), 801 S.E.2d 24 (2017) (gang attack at bus stop near amusement park was reasonably foreseeable where multiple incidents of gang......
-
Pneumo Abex, LLC v. Long
...§ 51-12-33 (c).11 Quinney, 347 Ga. App. at 427 (4), 819 S.E.2d 696 (punctuation omitted); accord Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P. , 301 Ga. 323, 337 (III), 801 S.E.2d 24 (2017) ; Couch v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. , 291 Ga. 359, 362 (1), 729 S.E.2d 378 (2012).12 Quinney, 347 Ga. App. at ......
-
Cajun Contractors, Inc. v. Peachtree Prop. Sub, LLC
...plaintiff, the breach of which is a proximate cause of his injury.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia II , 301 Ga. 323, 337 (III), 801 S.E.2d 24 (2017). We turn now to the particular theory of non-party fault at issue here. It is undisputed that AWH Partner......
-
Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc.
...conduct, which is likewise generally limited to reasonably foreseeable risks of harm. See, e.g., Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia (II), L.P. , 301 Ga. 323, 328, 801 S.E.2d 24 (2017) (A landowner's duty to protect invitees from third-party criminal attacks "extends only to foreseeable crimin......
-
Premises Liability and Apportionment Following Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia Ii, L.p.
...School of Law (J.D., with honors, 2006). Member, State Bar of Georgia.1. Martin v. Six Flags Over Ga. II, L.P., 301 Ga. 323, 324, 801 S.E.2d 24, 28 (2017).2. Six Flags Over Ga. II, L.P. v. Martin, 335 Ga. App. 350, 351, 780 S.E.2d 796, 800 (2015) (en banc), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, Mar......
-
Torts
...(2001)). 103. Maynard, 313 Ga. at 537 n.3, 870 S.E.2d at 745.104. Id. (citing Martin v. Six Flags Over Ga. II, L.P., 301 Ga. 323, 328, 801 S.E.2d 24, 30 (2017)).105. Maynard, 313 Ga. at 537-38, 870 S.E.2d at 746.106. Id.107. Id. at 538, 870 S.E.2d at 746.108. Id. at 538-39, 870 S.E.2d at 74......
-
Torts
...S.E.2d at 84. 33. Id. at 852, 795 S.E.2d at 90.34. Id. at 848, 795 S.E.2d at 87.35. Id. at 845-46, 795 S.E.2d at 85.36. 301 Ga. 323, 324, 801 S.E.2d 24 (2017).37. Id. at 324, 801 S.E.2d at 27.38. Id. at 324-26, 801 S.E.2d at 28-29. 39. Id. at 327-29, 801 S.E.2d at 30.40. Id.41. Id. at 336-3......
-
Writing Matters
...than one." To support that argument, the defendant quoted language from three cases—Martin v. Six Flags Over Ga. II, L.P., 301 Ga. 323, 801 S.E.2d 24 (2017), Zaldivar v. Prickett, 297 Ga. 589, 774 S.E.2d 688 (2015), and Couch v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 291 Ga. 359, 729 S.E.2d 378 (2012). The S......