State v. Moseley, S93A1129
| Decision Date | 22 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. S93A1129,S93A1129 |
| Citation | 436 S.E.2d 632,263 Ga. 680 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,844 STATE of Georgia v. Thomas A. MOSELEY et al. |
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Michael E. Hobbs, William C. Joy, Mary Foil Russell, William M. Droze, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for State.
James E. Butler, Jr., Robert D. Cheeley, Patrick A. Dawson, Butler, Wooten, Overby & Cheeley, Byron Attridge, King & Spalding, Atlanta, David Ruprecht, Snellville, for Moseley et al.
Kenneth W. Starr, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, David M. Heilbron, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson, San Francisco, CA, Albert M. Pearson, III, Butler, Wooten, Overby & Cheeley, Atlanta, Griffin B. Bell, Chilton Davis Varner, King & Spalding, Atlanta.
Joyce Kinnard, Georgia Consumer Center, Atlanta, Michael Rustad, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA, amici curiae.
This appeal stems from a products liability action brought against the General Motors Corporation by the appellees, Thomas and Elaine Moseley. Following a jury verdict awarding, in relevant part, $101,000,000 in punitive damages against General Motors, the State of Georgia sought to have the trial court apportion 75% of the punitive damages award to the State under OCGA § 51-12-5.1(e)(2). That statute apportions 75% of an award of punitive damages in a products liability action to the State of Georgia and 25% to the plaintiff. The trial court, based upon a motion filed by the Moseleys, held § 51-12-5.1(e)(2) unconstitutional. The State has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in holding the statute unconstitutional. We agree and reverse.
1. At the outset, we note that this Court has held that § 51-12-5.1(e)(2) does not violate equal protection, does not violate the "Takings" clauses of the United States and Georgia Constitutions, and is not a revenue raising measure and thus does not violate Art. 3, Sec. 5, Par. 3 of the Georgia Constitution. Mack Trucks, Inc., v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 543-44, 436 S.E.2d 635 (1993). Accordingly, the trial court's holdings to the contrary in this case are error and must be reversed.
2. The State also contends that the trial court erred by holding that § 51-12-5.1(e)(2) violates the right to a jury trial as guaranteed by Art. 1, Sec. 1, Par. 11 of the Georgia Constitution. We agree.
Art. 1, Sec. 1, Par. 11 provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate." We have construed this provision as guaranteeing the right to a jury trial in those cases in which such a right existed at common law or by statute at the time of the adoption of the Georgia Constitution of 1978. Benton v. Georgia Marble Co., 258 Ga. 58, 66, 365 S.E.2d 413 (1988). The Moseleys, however, contend that under the common law it was the function of the jury to determine what amount of punitive damages must be awarded to a plaintiff to punish or deter a defendant and that the legislature improperly interferes with that award, and thus violates Art. 1, Sec. 1, Par. 11, by apportioning 75% of the award to the State. The Moseleys, in essence, are asking this Court to rule that Art. 1, Sec. 1, Par. 11 prohibits the General Assembly from abrogating or circumscribing common law or statutory rights of action. We have held, however, that that provision of the Constitution has no such effect, Teasley v. Mathis, 243 Ga. 561, 564, 255 S.E.2d 57 (1979); see also, Georgia Lions Eye Bank, Inc. v. Lavant, 255 Ga. 60, 61-62, 335 S.E.2d 127 (1985), and we decline to part from that rule in this case.
Moreover, we find no violation of the rule of Benton v. Georgia Marble, 258 Ga. at 66, 365 S.E.2d 413. A jury determined the amount of damages that the jury believed would serve to punish General Motors and to deter its future conduct. The appellees were entitled to 25% of that amount. The appellees thus received a jury trial on the amount of punitive damages to which they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Baptiste
...and representation by counsel. Couch v. Parker, 280 Ga. 580, 581(1), 630 S.E.2d 364 (2006); State of Ga. v. Moseley, 263 Ga. 680, 682(3), 436 S.E.2d 632 (1993); Nelms v. Georgian Manor Condo. Assn., 253 Ga. 410, 412-413(2), (3), 321 S.E.2d 330 (1984). “Thus, there is no express ‘right of ac......
-
ATLANTA OCULOPLASTIC SURGERY v. Nestlehutt
...... to be a "crisis affecting the provision and quality of health care services in this state." Ga. L.2005, p. 1, § 1. Specifically, the Legislature found that health care providers and .... Contrary to appellant's assertion, State of Ga. v. Moseley, 263 Ga. 680(2), 436 S.E.2d 632 (1993) and Teasley v. Mathis, 243 Ga. 561(2), 255 S.E.2d 57 ......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Moseley
...On appeal, however, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of OCGA § 51-12-5.1(e)(2), and reversed. State of Ga. v. Moseley, 263 Ga. 680, 436 S.E.2d 632 (1993). GM filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which the trial court denied, and this appeal followed......
-
Cheatham v. Pohle
...Co. v. Traina, 486 N.E.2d 1019, 1022 (Ind.1986); see also Gordon v. State, 608 So.2d 800, 801 (Fla.1992); State v. Moseley, 263 Ga. 680, 436 S.E.2d 632, 634 (1993); Shepherd Components, Inc. v. Brice Petrides-Donohue & Assoc., Inc., 473 N.W.2d 612, 619 (Iowa Specifically, any interest the p......