Webster v. Boyett
| Decision Date | 02 March 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S97G0856,S97G0856 |
| Citation | 269 Ga. 191,496 S.E.2d 459 |
| Parties | , 98 FCDR 720 WEBSTER v. BOYETT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Richard A. Marchetti, Derron R. Hicks, Self, Mullins, Robinson, Marchetti & Kamens, Columbus, for Jesse C. Webster, III.
Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis, & Rothschild, William B. Hardegree, William J. Mason, Columbus, for Lois W. Boyett.
We granted the writ of certiorari to determine whether evidence of a defendant's similar acts or omissions is relevant in determining liability for punitive damages and, if so, the proper procedure to be followed in handling the admission of the evidence. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it prohibited evidence of a prior conviction during the liability phase of a bifurcated trial or when it refused to separate the issue of liability for punitive damages from the issue of compensatory damages. Because the court of appeals found both rulings were an abuse of discretion, we reverse.
Lois W. Boyett was injured in an automobile accident and filed a personal injury action against Jesse C. Webster, III, who pleaded guilty to driving under the influence in connection with the accident. The trial court bifurcated the trial based on OCGA § 51-12-5.1, the punitive damages statute, and granted Webster's motion in limine to exclude evidence of a prior DUI during the first phase of the trial on liability. At the end of that phase, the jury returned a verdict for Boyett and awarded her $7,500 in compensatory damages, but declined to award punitive damages. She appealed, contending that the trial court erred in disallowing evidence of Webster's prior DUI to support her claim of punitive damages.
The court of appeals reversed. 1 It held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Webster's prior DUI during the liability phase of the trial. The court concluded that the relevance of the evidence to Boyett's claim for punitive damages outweighed any prejudice to Webster on the issue of liability in the underlying negligence action if proper limiting instructions were given. The court noted the problem with the statutory requirement that liability for punitive damages must be bifurcated from the amount of punitive damages. "[E]xcluding from the jury in the liability phase evidence of other acts of driving under the influence or other similar acts ... might assure defendants a fairer trial on liability for the underlying negligence at issue, but doing so in a bifurcated trial virtually assures that plaintiffs are denied fair trials on liability for punitive damages." 2 As a result, the appellate court concluded that trial courts should follow a trifurcated procedure in which the jury determines compensatory damages in the first phase, the propriety of punitive damages in the second phase, and the amount of punitive damages in the third. 3 Finding a second abuse of discretion based on the trial court's refusal to separate the issues of liability and damages for the underlying tort from liability for punitive damages, the court of appeals reversed.
1. In Moore v. Thompson, 4 we held that evidence of the defendant's prior and subsequent guilty pleas to driving under the Two years later, the Georgia General Assembly mandated a different bifurcation procedure under the Tort Reform Act of 1987. 8 The act provides that punitive damages may be awarded in tort actions when the plaintiff specifically prays in the complaint for an award and proves "by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences." 9 OCGA § 51-12-5.1 expressly requires a bifurcation of the punitive damages issues: the trier of fact first decides whether to award punitive damages and then reconvenes to decide the amount to be awarded. 10 Because of this required bifurcation of the punitive damages claim, courts may no longer conduct the bifurcated proceeding recommended by this court in Moore--determining liability in the underlying negligence action first and then determining all punitive damages issues together. 11
influence was admissible on the question of punitive damages. Our rationale was that the extent of the defendant's wilful misconduct, wantonness, and entire want of care in driving under the influence could not be gauged solely from the incident in issue, but that evidence of other DUI incidents was relevant to the question of punitive damages. 5 Recognizing the prejudicial effect of the guilty pleas on the defendant's liability in the underlying case, we further held that "the trial judge should exercise his discretion under OCGA § 9-11-42(b) to try the issue of punitive damages separately in a bifurcated procedure or in a separate trial." 6 This decision is consistent with both the federal rule and the rule in most states. 7
Instead, courts must conduct either bifurcated or trifurcated trials under the statute. Under the bifurcated trial, the jury would decide liability, the amount of compensatory damages, and liability for punitive damages in the first phase and the amount of punitive damages in the second phase. 12 Under the trifurcated trial, the jury would determine liability and the amount of compensatory damages in the first phase, liability for punitive damages in the second phase, and the amount of punitive damages in the third phase.
In a bifurcated trial, the statute's mandatory separation of the punitive damages claim creates a problem when, as here, the plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior similar acts of DUI on the issue of liability for punitive damages. Although evidence of the prior acts is relevant to whether the defendant acted with willful misconduct, wantonness, or an entire want of care, the evidence of prior convictions is highly prejudicial to the issue of liability in the underlying negligence action. As the court of appeals has explained the problem [E]vidence appropriately admitted to show the propriety of punitive damages may influence the jury in deciding the issue of liability for compensatory damages. Further, any reversible error in the admission of evidence pertaining to the entitlement to punitive damages makes it difficult, if not impossible, to affirm a judgment on the compensatory claim, when both claims are litigated in the same phase of the trial. 13
Thus, the defendant may be denied a fair trial on liability in the underlying negligence action if the jury is permitted to hear the prior similar act evidence during the first phase. On the other hand, the plaintiff may be denied a fair trial on liability for punitive damages if the evidence of prior similar acts is excluded during the liability phase of the bifurcated trial.
Exercising their discretion, trial courts have attempted various solutions. Some courts permit evidence of prior similar acts on the issue of liability for punitive damages during the first phase of a bifurcated trial, but give a limiting instruction to the jury. 14 Others, like the trial court in this case, exclude evidence of prior similar acts during the liability phase, but permit it on the issue of the amount of punitive damages in the second phase. 15 A third approach is to separate both the liability issues and the punitive damages issues in a trifurcated proceeding. 16 Under this procedure, the jury decides the issue of liability for compensatory damages, the propriety of punitive damages, and the amount of punitive damages in three separate phases. 17
We granted certiorari to decide whether evidence of a defendant's similar acts of misconduct is admissible on the issue of liability for punitive damages or solely on the issue of the amount of punitive damages in a bifurcated trial under § 51-12-5.1 and to review the recommendation of trifurcated trials. If we were deciding this issue in the absence of the punitive damages statute, we would adhere to our decision in Moore v. Thompson. We agree with that opinion that (1) a defendant's prior and subsequent acts of driving under the influence are relevant to whether the defendant acted with conscious indifference to the consequences in again driving under the influence, (2) although relevant, the evidence is highly prejudicial to the issue of the defendant's liability in the underlying negligence case, and (3) the trial court should try the issue of punitive damages separately from the issue of compensatory damages in a bifurcated DUI trial. Consistent with that opinion, we note that it is not necessary to have a separate proceeding on the amount of punitive damages, as the statute requires, to avoid prejudice to the defendant. Because the punitive damages statute precludes trial courts from separating compensatory and punitive damages claims in a Until the legislature amends the law, however, both trial and appellate courts must seek to reconcile the statutory requirement of bifurcation of the punitive damages issues with the ruling in Moore v. Thompson that prior similar acts are relevant to the issue of liability for punitive damages. Rather than adopt a bright-line rule, we conclude that the best way to guarantee a fair trial and ensure judicial economy is to continue to give the trial judge discretion on when to admit the evidence of prior and subsequent acts. The general rule is that trial judges may exercise discretion in excluding relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk that its admission will confuse the issue, mislead the jury, or create substantial danger of undue prejudice. 18 In making their decision, trial courts should consider the potential prejudice to the parties, the complexity of issues and the potential for jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bookerv. C. R. Bard, Inc. (In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig.)
...General Motors Corp. v. Moseley , 213 Ga.App. 875, 447 S.E.2d 302, 311 (Ga1994), abrogated on other grounds by Webster v. Boyett , 269 Ga. 191, 496 S.E.2d 459 (1998). When a failure to warn reflects "a conscious disregard for the safety of others," punitive damages may be appropriate. Zeigl......
-
Duchess v. Langston Corp.
...(1994); General Motors Corp. v. Moseley, 213 Ga.App. 875, 447 S.E.2d 302, 310 (1994), overruled on other grounds, Webster v. Boyett, 269 Ga. 191, 496 S.E.2d 459, 463 (1998); Ford Motor Co. v. Fulkerson, 812 S.W.2d 119, 126 (Ky.1991); Sanderson v. Steve Snyder Enterprises, Inc., 196 Conn. 13......
-
Doherty v. Brown
...testimony, no one "on that day discussed [Doherty's] possible impairment or odd behavior." (Emphasis supplied.) See Webster v. Boyett , 269 Ga. 191, 496 S.E.2d 459 (1998) (trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding evidence of prior DUI offense from liability phase of negligence acti......
-
Fassnacht v. Moler
...at issue, courts are required under OCGA § 51-12-5.1 to either bifurcate or trifurcate the trial proceedings. Webster v. Boyett , 269 Ga. 191, 193 (1), 496 S.E.2d 459 (1998). See OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (d) ;4 Bolden v. Ruppenthal , 286 Ga. App. 800, 804 (3), 650 S.E.2d 331 (2007). Where, as here,......
-
Admissibility of evidence of subsequent remedial measures in strict liability: some state courts fail to follow Federal Rule 407 that this evidence is just as irrelevant in strict liability as in negligence actions.
...1975). (25.) See, e.g., Forma Scientific, 650 P.2d 108; D.L. by Friederichs v. Huebner, 329 N.W.2d 890 (Wis. 1983); Webster v. Boyett, 496 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. 1998); McFarland v. Bruno Mach. Corp., 626 N.E.2d 659 (Ohio (26.) Flaminio v. Honda Motor Co., 733 F.2d 463, 467, 469 (7th Cir. 1984) (r......