Stanley v. Garrett

• Decision Date: 17 September 2020
• Docket Number: A20A0894
• Citation: 848 S.E.2d 890,356 Ga.App. 706
• Parties: Janet Lee Graham STANLEY et al. v. Floyd P. GARRETT et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

356 Ga.App. 706

848 S.E.2d 890

Janet Lee Graham STANLEY et al.

v.Floyd P. GARRETT et al.

A20A0894

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

September 17, 2020

David John Hungeling, Adam S. Rubenfield, Atlanta, for Appellant.

Heather Saum Ware, John E. Hall Jr., Pearson Kern Cunningham, Atlanta, Annalese Herndon, for Appellee.

Dillard, Presiding Judge.

While driving under the influence of alcohol and prescription drugs, Jeffrey Fettig struck a vehicle driven by Thomas Stanley, resulting in Stanley's death. Thereafter, Janet Stanley, Thomas's wife, filed a lawsuit against Dr. Floyd Garrett, the psychiatrist who had been treating Fettig for alcoholism.¹ Specifically, Janet alleged that Garrett's negligence in treating Fettig and failure to prevent him from driving—despite meeting with him a few hours prior to the accident—led to the fatal collision. Garrett successfully moved to dismiss Stanley's professional-negligence claim and, later, successfully moved for summary judgment as to her ordinary-negligence claim. On appeal, Stanley argues that the trial court erred in granting Garrett's motion for summary judgment and his motion to dismiss. She further contends that the trial court erred in partially denying her motion to exclude expert testimony and partially granting Garrett's similar motion. For the reasons set forth infra , we affirm.²

Viewed in the light most favorable to Stanley (i.e. , the nonmoving party),³ the record shows that in September 2014, Fettig began seeing Garrett—a psychiatrist with extensive experience in treating alcohol and drug addiction—on an outpatient basis for treatment of his alcoholism and depression. At their first session, Garrett prescribed Lorazepam—an anti-anxiety medication—to help Fettig during the alcohol-withdrawal process. Then, over the course of the next month, Fettig met with Garrett for several more sessions, ending his treatment on October 6, 2014. And for the next four months, Fettig managed to remain sober. But in late February 2015, while on a business trip in Colorado, Fettig relapsed. As a result, he cut his trip short and returned to Atlanta on February 26, 2015. Once he arrived home, Fettig's wife contacted Garrett's assistant and scheduled an emergency session for noon on Saturday, February 28, 2015, at Garrett's Buckhead office.

Although Fettig could not recall when, at some point on February 28, 2015, he took one of the Lorazepam that Garrett previously prescribed. At 9:00 a.m. that day, he attended an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Then, after the meeting concluded, Fettig went to a tavern, arriving when it opened at 11:00 a.m. And during the forty minutes he was there, Fettig drank five beers. He then drove nearly two miles down the street to Garrett's office to attend his emergency session. Although Fettig later speculated that he must have been intoxicated, he apparently attended the session without incident. Following the session, Fettig drove back up the street—again nearly two miles—to a neighborhood pub that he frequented when he previously lived in the area. At the pub, he drank a few more beers before driving to a burger restaurant in Marietta not far from his home. Once there, he drank two more beers before the bartender stopped serving him. Fettig then left the restaurant, and, shortly thereafter, his vehicle collided with Thomas Stanley's vehicle, resulting in Thomas's death. At the hospital, blood taken from Fettig indicated a blood-alcohol content of 0.192 percent and a Lorazepam

concentration of 36 micrograms per liter.

Following her husband's death, Janet Stanley filed a lawsuit against Garrett and his medical practice, alleging that Garrett's negligence in both his treatment of Fettig and his failure to prevent Fettig from driving—despite meeting with him a few hours prior to the accident—led to the fatal collision. And filed with Stanley's complaint was an affidavit from a psychiatrist, who averred that Garrett's treatment of Fettig deviated from the standard of care for such patients. Garrett filed an answer and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that Stanley could not recover for any professional negligence related to his treatment of Fettig because physician-patient privity was required to maintain such a claim. Stanley responded, but the trial court granted Garrett's motion and dismissed Stanley's professional-negligence claim.

After discovery concluded, Garrett filed a motion for summary judgment as to Stanley's remaining claim of ordinary negligence. And prior to responding to Garrett's motion, Stanley filed a motion to exclude one of Garrett's expert witnesses. Garrett responded and filed his own motion to exclude certain testimony of one of Stanley's expert witnesses. Subsequently, Stanley filed her response to Garrett's motion for summary judgment. Then, after holding a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted Garrett's motion for summary judgment, finding, inter alia , that Garrett had no duty to exercise control over Fettig to prevent him from harming others. In the same order, the trial court denied both parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony, finding them moot; but in a footnote, the court added that if its order on summary judgment were reversed, it would grant both motions in part and deny them in part. This appeal follows.

1. Stanley first contends that the trial court erred in granting Garrett summary judgment as to her ordinary-negligence claim, arguing that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Garrett had a duty to exercise control over Fettig to prevent him from harming others. We disagree.

Summary judgment is proper if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."⁴ If summary judgment is granted, it enjoys no presumption of correctness on appeal, and an appellate court must satisfy itself that the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) have been met.⁵ In conducting this de novo review, we are charged with "viewing the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant."⁶ Bearing these guiding principles in mind, we turn to Stanley's specific claims of error.

Stanley contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to her ordinary-negligence claim on the ground that, as a matter of law, Garrett had no duty to exercise control over Fettig to prevent him from harming others. In order to have a viable negligence action, a plaintiff "must satisfy the elements of the tort, namely, the existence of a duty on the part of the defendant, a breach of that duty, causation of the alleged injury, and damages resulting from the alleged breach of the duty."⁷ Specifically, a "legal duty" is the "obligation to conform to a standard of conduct under the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm."⁸ But the innocence of the plaintiff is

immaterial to the existence of the legal duty on the part of the defendant in that the plaintiff will not be entitled to recover unless the defendant did something that it should not have done, i.e., an action, or failed to do something that it should have done, i.e., an omission, pursuant to the duty owed the plaintiff under the law.⁹

And such a duty can arise either from "a valid legislative enactment, that is, by statute, or be imposed by a common law principle recognized in the caselaw."¹⁰ Nevertheless, as the Supreme Court of Georgia has recently held, there is no general legal duty to all the world not to subject others to an unreasonable risk of harm.¹¹ Finally, and importantly with regard to reviewing a grant of summary judgment, "[t]he existence of a legal duty is a question of law for the court."¹²

As a general rule, there is no duty to "control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing physical harm to others."¹³ And specifically, a doctor—like any actor—generally has "no duty to exercise control over third persons to prevent them from harming others."¹⁴ But the two exceptions to this rule are when "a special relationship exists between the actor and another imposing a duty on the actor to control such person's conduct for the benefit of third persons, or a special relationship exists between the actor and another giving such person a right to protection."¹⁵

Turning to the issue before us, Stanley argues that Garrett owed a duty under the first exception as outlined in Bradley Center v. Wessner .¹⁶ In that case, a voluntary inpatient in a mental hospital shot and killed his wife while out on an unrestricted weekend pass, despite previously making numerous statements to hospital staff indicating his intention to harm his wife.¹⁷ Furthermore, although the patient had been admitted to the private hospital on a voluntary basis, by the terms of his admission, the hospital was authorized to detain him for 48 hours in the event he sought discharge against medical advice.¹⁸ Given these circumstances, in affirming a jury verdict in favor of the victim's child's negligence claim against the hospital, our Supreme Court held that

when the course of treatment of a mental patient involves an exercise of ‘control’ over him by a physician who knows or should know that the patient is likely to cause bodily harm to others, an independent duty arises from that relationship and falls upon the physician to exercise that control with such reasonable care as to prevent harm to others at the hands of the patient.¹⁹

Consequently, Bradley Center essentially established a two-part test for determining the circumstances under which a physician may be liable to a third party: "(1) the physician must have control over the mental patient; and (2) the physician must have known or reasonably should have known that the patient was likely to cause bodily harm to...