Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bryant, s. A95A2167
| Decision Date | 08 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | A95A2793,Nos. A95A2167,s. A95A2167 |
| Parties | SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. BRYANT. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. GOOLSBY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Karsman, Brooks & Callaway, D. Campbell Bowman, Jr., Savannah, for appellant.
Jones, Boykin & Associates, Noble L. Boykin, Jr., Gilbert L. Stacy, Savannah, for appellees.
These two cases arise from the same April 5, 1991, automobile collision, which happened when Kenneth Steven Wigley, who was traveling more than 70 mph in a 35 mph zone, passed another car on a curve, lost control, crossed the centerline, and struck the vehicle which plaintiff Sharon Bryant was driving. Riding in the car with Bryant were her mother, daughter and niece, as well as her sister, plaintiff Sandra Goolsby, and Goolsby's daughter. Wigley was killed in the accident; analysis indicated that at the time of the accident, he had a blood alcohol level of .26 grams percent.
In Case No. A95A2167, Bryant sued Wigley's estate, through his administrator, for injuries she claimed resulted from Wigley's negligent operation of his vehicle. She served Shelter Mutual Insurance Company ("Shelter") as the uninsured motorist carrier. The suit against Wigley's estate went into default, and Shelter defended the suit in its own name. See OCGA § 33-7-11(d).
Prior to trial, Shelter moved to amend the pretrial order and amended its answer, admitting that Bryant was an insured under the policy, that Wigley was an uninsured motorist, and that the automobile accident was a covered policy event. Shelter also filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Wigley's intoxication from the trial. The court allowed Shelter to admit its liability under the policy, but denied the motion in limine regarding Wigley's intoxication.
In Case No. A95A2793, Sandra Goolsby, Bryant's sister, sued Wigley for injuries she claimed from his negligence and served Shelter as the uninsured motorist carrier. As in Bryant's case, the suit against Wigley's estate went into default, and Shelter answered the complaint in its own name. Shelter filed a motion to amend its answer to admit its contractual liability and a motion in limine regarding Wigley's intoxication, which the court denied.
The trials were conducted separately. At both trials, the investigating officer of the collision testified regarding the accident and testified to Wigley's blood alcohol level at the time of the accident. In both cases, a medical report confirming Wigley's blood alcohol content was also admitted. Bryant testified at both trials regarding the manner in which the accident occurred.
In Case No. A95A2167, there was evidence that, as a result of the accident, Bryant suffered an avulsion fracture in her right foot and incurred medical bills of $2,355. Medical testimony established that, as a result of the accident, Bryant suffered permanent nerve impairment and developed arthritis in her foot. Bryant testified that at the time of the trial, nearly four years after the accident, she still suffered pain from her injury.
In Case No. A95A2793, Goolsby testified that she suffered neck and back injuries in the accident and incurred $4,500 in medical bills. Goolsby testified that because of her injuries, she went to physical therapy 51 times and that she continued to have neck pain. Medical testimony was consistent with Goolsby's complaints.
At the conclusion of the evidence in both cases, the court charged the jury that because the complaint against Wigley's estate had gone into default, the estate had admitted Wigley's responsibility for the wreck and for any of the plaintiffs' injuries as proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The court further charged the jury that Shelter had admitted that it was responsible for the damages proximately caused by Wigley's wrongful acts in operating his car. Accordingly, the court directed a verdict on fault and responsibility against both of the defendants, and stated that since fault and responsibility were not at issue, the jury's sole duty was to determine the amount of damages proximately caused by the accident. The court then charged the jury on proximate cause, compensatory damages, and damages for pain and suffering. The court charged that the award of damages was to compensate the plaintiff and not to unreasonably burden the defendant. No charge regarding the evidence on alcohol was given.
In Case No. A95A2167, the jury returned a $95,000 verdict for Bryant. In Case No. A95A2793, the jury returned a $60,000 verdict for Goolsby. Here, Shelter raises the same enumerations of error in both cases, and we will address them together.
1. In its first and second enumerations, Shelter claims error in the trial court's refusal to exclude evidence of Wigley's intoxication. First, Shelter claims the court erred in denying its motion in limine. Secondly, Shelter argues that the court erred in permitting the investigating officer to testify to Wigley's blood alcohol level and allowing into evidence a report corroborating this testimony. Shelter argues that because the trial involved only causation and damages, evidence regarding Wigley's intoxication was unduly prejudicial. Bryant and Goolsby contend that this evidence was relevant and admissible to give context to the accident and to establish the speed and force of the vehicles at the time of impact.
In resolving this issue, we are first mindful that an insurance company is not liable to its insureds under its uninsured motorist coverage for punitive damages. State Farm, etc., Ins. Co. v. Weathers, 260 Ga. 123, 392 S.E.2d 1 (1990); Roman v. Terrell, 195 Ga.App. 219, 393 S.E.2d 83 (1990). The Roman court explained: "(a)llowing punitive damages to be awarded against an insurance company can serve no deterrent function because the wrongdoer is not the person paying the damages...." Id. at 222, 393 S.E.2d 83. Accordingly, Bryant and Goolsby did not seek punitive damages in these cases.
Clearly, evidence regarding alcohol consumption is admissible when punitive damages are sought. Moore v. Thompson, 255 Ga. 236, 237, 336 S.E.2d 749 (1985); see generally OCGA § 51-12-5.1. That evidence of alcohol consumption is an aggravating circumstance in awarding punitive damages does not mean that such evidence is automatically inadmissible if punitive damages are not sought, however. See, e.g., Beal v. Braunecker, 185 Ga.App. 429, 430(1), 364 S.E.2d 308 (1987) ().
In these cases, there was no error in admitting this evidence since Wigley's alcohol consumption was inextricably linked to the accident, and to Wigley's negligence. Bryant's testimony regarding the accident was that Wigley was traveling more than twice the speed limit, that he lost control of the vehicle, crossed over the centerline, and ricocheted off a tree. In both cases, photographs of the vehicles at the accident scene were admitted into evidence. All of this evidence was relevant to the jury's inquiry because although the court directed a verdict on negligence, the elements of proximate cause and damages were still subject to proof. See Harrison v. Feather, 211 Ga.App. 468(1), 469, 439 S.E.2d 706 (1993) (); compare Dilworth v. Boeckler, 187 Ga.App. 241, 370 S.E.2d 17 (1988).
In both trials, the court instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartz v. Brancheau
...testimony was irrelevant. Schwartz's contention is controlled directly and adversely to him by the case of Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bryant, 220 Ga.App. 526, 469 S.E.2d 792 (1996). In Shelter Mutual, the trial court denied a motion in limine by the UM carrier to exclude evidence of thedefe......
-
Langlois v. Wolford
...regarding alcohol consumption is admissible when punitive damages are sought." (Citation omitted.) Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bryant, 220 Ga.App. 526, 528(1), 469 S.E.2d 792 (1996). The jury was authorized to consider that the defendant's perception, attention, reaction time, and motor skills......
-
Bonamico v. Kisella
...not recoverable against an uninsured motorist. See, e.g., Dees, 281 Ga.App. at 838(1), 637 S.E.2d 424; Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bryant, 220 Ga.App. 526, 528(1), 469 S.E.2d 792 (1996); Moore v. State Farm, etc. Ins. Co., 196 Ga.App. 755, 757-758, 397 S.E.2d 127 The Bonamicos nevertheless arg......
-
Barrett v. Burnette, A18A1705
...(1), 738 S.E.2d 716 (2013). In excluding the evidence, the trial court relied on the concurrence in Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bryant , 220 Ga. App. 526, 530 (1), 469 S.E.2d 792 (1996), which stated that while it was not an abuse of discretion to admit evidence of whether the driver in an acc......
-
Evidence
...at 702. 19. Id. at 839, 824 S.E.2d at 702-03.20. O.C.G.A. § 24-4-403 (2019).21. Barrett, 348 Ga. App. at 839, 824 S.E.2d at 703.22. 220 Ga. App. 526, 469 S.E.2d 792 (1996).23. Barrett, 348 Ga. App. at 840, 824 S.E.2d at 703.24. Id. at 840-41, 824 S.E.2d at 703.25. Id. at 839, 824 S.E.2d at ......