Trial Practice and Procedure - Jason L. Crawford, J. Clay Fuller, Dustin T. Brown, and Kate S. Cook

• Publication year: 2004

Trial Practice and Procedure

Jason L. Crawford^* J. Clay Fuller^*** Dustin T. Brown^*** and Kate S. Cook^****

I. Introduction

During this survey period, the Georgia Supreme Court and Georgia Court of Appeals issued several noteworthy opinions on topics of interest to practitioners. This Article will address these judicial opinions that cover, among other topics, the issues of damages, immunity, the attorney-client relationship, indemnification, jurisdiction and venue, statutes of limitation, standing, and trial procedure. This Article will also address several developments in Georgia's statutory law impacting trial practice and procedure.

--------

Notes:

^*. Partner in the firm of Butler, Wooten, Fryhofer, Daughtery & Crawford, LLP, Columbus and Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia State University (B.B.A., magna cum laude, 1990); University of Georgia (J.D., magna cum laude, 1993). Member, State Bar of Georgia.

^**. Associate in the firm of Butler, Wooten, Fryhofer, Daughtery & Crawford, LLP, Columbus and Atlanta, Georgia. University of Georgia (B.A., 1988); University of Georgia (J.D., magna cum laude, 1999). Member, State Bar of Georgia.

^***. Associate in the firm of Butler, Wooten, Fryhofer, Daughtery & Crawford, LLP, Columbus and Atlanta, Georgia. University of Georgia (B.B.A., 1999); University of Georgia (J.D., summa cum laude, 2002). Member, State Bar of Georgia and Alabama State Bar.

^****. Associate in the firm of Butler, Wooten, Fryhofer, Daughtery & Crawford, LLP, Columbus and Atlanta, Georgia. University of the South (B.A., magna cum laude, 1998); Walter F. George School of Law, Mercer University (J.D., magna cum laude, 2002). Member, State Bar of Georgia.

II. Case Law

A. Damages

^1. Punitive Damages. In Kothari v. Patel,¹ the Georgia Court of Appeals clarified that a plaintiff need only prove specific intent to cause harm by a preponderance of the evidence in order to lift the statutory cap on punitive damages² under section 51-12-5.1(f) of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated ("O.C.G.A.").³ In Kothari defendants-appellants argued that the trial court misconstrued Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Six Flags Over Georgia⁴ when the trial court held that Time Warner supported its finding that "the evidentiary standard set forth in subsection (b) [of O.C.G.A. section 51-12-5.1] for proving that punitive damages are appropriate, requiring clear and convincing evidence, [does not apply] to subsection (f), to...