- Court
- Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Year
- 2024
- Case
- Geary v. Estate of Tapley
- Citation
- 373 Ga. App. 561
- Decided
- October 25, 2024
The trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding pain and suffering or the aggravation of preexisting conditions, and it did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial or remittitur because the $15 million verdict was not so excessive as to be irrational.
Summary
On October 25, 2024, the Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed a judgment in Geary v. Estate of Tapley, 373 Ga. App. 561, upholding a $15 million jury verdict in a medical malpractice case. The trial court had denied the defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, and remittitur. The appellate court held that the trial court’s jury instructions were proper and that the damages award was within the range authorized by the evidence.
Issues Decided
Jury Instruction on Pain and Suffering
Decision
The trial court did not err by refusing to give the defendants’ requested instruction requiring evidence that the decedent was “conscious of his imminent death” to award pain and suffering damages.
Facts
James Tapley died approximately 30 hours after a prostate surgery during which his bladder was perforated. The defendants requested a jury charge stating that for pain and suffering to be awarded, there must be evidence the deceased was “conscious of his imminent death.” The trial court instead gave the pattern instruction on pain and suffering, which includes factors like interference with enjoyment of life and actual physical pain.
Reasoning
The court reasoned that the defendants’ requested instruction was based on case law involving instantaneous or near-instantaneous death, which was not applicable here because Tapley lived for 30 hours after the alleged negligence. Furthermore, the trial court gave the pattern instruction on pain and suffering, which is a correct statement of Georgia law and sufficiently covered the relevant legal principles.
Jury Instruction on Preexisting Conditions
Decision
The trial court properly instructed the jury on the aggravation of preexisting conditions and the principle that a defendant “takes the plaintiff as he finds him.”
Facts
The plaintiff alleged negligence in failing to perform a cystogram and failing to repair the bladder perforation that occurred during surgery. Evidence also showed Tapley had several comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, emphysema, and heart disease.
Reasoning
The court found the instruction apt because the alleged malpractice (failure to diagnose and repair) worsened the “preexisting condition” of the bladder perforation itself. Additionally, the “eggshell plaintiff” rule was applicable because evidence was presented regarding Tapley’s various chronic health conditions, and a charge may be given even when there is only slight evidence to sustain it.
Excessiveness of the Verdict
Decision
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the defendants’ argument that the $15 million verdict ($2.5 million for pain and suffering and $12.5 million for wrongful death) was excessive.
Facts
Defendants argued the pain and suffering award was unsupported because Tapley was allegedly unresponsive for much of the period following the surgery. They also argued the $12.5 million wrongful death award was irrational given Tapley’s age (80) and poor health.
Reasoning
The court emphasized that the trial court’s approval of the verdict created a presumption of correctness. The court found no evidence that the verdict was the result of bias, prejudice, or corruption, and concluded the total award did not “shock the conscience.” It also noted that the defendants failed to object to the closing arguments they later claimed were improper.
Commentary
For plaintiff practitioners, this decision reinforces that the “eggshell plaintiff” or “take-the-plaintiff-as-found” instruction remains viable even when a defendant argues that a plaintiff’s preexisting conditions should limit damages. The court upheld the instruction here because the alleged malpractice—failure to perform a cystogram and failure to repair the bladder perforation—directly worsened the preexisting condition (the perforation itself), not merely exacerbated unrelated comorbidities. The practical significance is that evidence of a plaintiff’s age, poor health, or chronic disease does not automatically defeat a damages instruction; rather, the instruction applies when the defendant’s negligence aggravates or prolongs an existing injury or condition. Plaintiff counsel should ensure that the causal chain between the alleged malpractice and the worsening of any preexisting condition is clearly established in the record, as the court emphasized that the plaintiff presented evidence supporting those allegations.
A second observation concerns the appellate standard for excessive-verdict review. The court applied an extremely high threshold, requiring that a verdict be “so excessive as to be irrational” and “shock the conscience” before an appellate court will disturb a trial court’s approval. The trial court’s approval of the verdict creates a presumption of correctness that is not disturbed absent compelling evidence. Notably, the defendants’ failure to object to plaintiff’s closing argument statements—including references to professional athletes’ and CEOs’ salaries—was treated as a waiver that limited appellate review. Plaintiff counsel should be aware that timely objection by opposing counsel to closing argument can preserve issues for appeal, but the absence of objection narrows the appellate court’s willingness to find error based on those statements.
