Edwards v. Sabat
589 S.E.2d 618, 263 Ga. App. 852 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court will affirm a jury's verdict if there is any evidence to support it, and the tort of assault does not require actual physical touching, only an intent to injure coupled with an apparent ability, while intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct that causes severe emotional distress.
Facts:
- On January 6, 1999, Caylin Edwards, the infant daughter of Paige Edwards, was enrolled in a day care center operated by Natalie Sabat out of her home.
- On January 29, 1999, Paige Edwards left Caylin at Sabat’s day care, and later that day, Caylin was transported to the emergency room and diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome.
- About three weeks after the incident, Paige Edwards began a pattern of harassing behavior towards Natalie Sabat, including repeatedly 'flipping off' Sabat and mouthing derogatory words, often in front of Sabat's three-year-old daughter.
- Paige Edwards, a police officer, used her police car with flashing blue lights to drive slowly past Sabat’s house and on another occasion tailgated Sabat in her truck.
- On one occasion, Paige Edwards swerved her truck in front of Natalie Sabat, cutting her off, and on another, ran Sabat's vehicle into a ditch, both times while Sabat's daughter was in the car.
- Natalie Sabat testified that due to Paige Edwards' behavior, she was 'scared out of her mind.'
- During a prior criminal investigation, Lisa Fields, Paige Edwards' life-partner, told a law enforcement officer that she had bounced Caylin up and down and that the baby had lurched backward on at least one occasion, though she did not remember if this occurred within 24 hours of the incident at Sabat's home.
Procedural Posture:
- Paige Edwards sued Natalie Sabat in a trial court for injuries allegedly sustained by her infant daughter, Caylin.
- Natalie Sabat filed counterclaims against Paige Edwards for intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault.
- A jury in the trial court found for Natalie Sabat on Edwards’ claims and awarded Sabat $65,000 on her counterclaims.
- Paige Edwards moved for a directed verdict on Sabat's counterclaims, which the trial court denied.
- Paige Edwards (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Georgia Court of Appeals, asserting errors regarding evidentiary issues and the denial of a directed verdict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in denying a directed verdict for a plaintiff on claims of assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress when the evidence supported the defendant's counterclaims, and did the trial court make several reversible evidentiary errors?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruffin, Presiding Judge
No, the trial court did not err in denying a directed verdict as to Sabat’s claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, nor did it commit reversible evidentiary errors. The court reasoned that Georgia law (OCGA § 51-1-14) explicitly states that actual touching is not a necessary element of assault; instead, it requires only an intention to commit an injury coupled with an apparent ability to do so. Sabat's testimony that Edwards tailgated, cut her off, and ran her into a ditch provided sufficient evidence for a jury to find assault. For intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court cited the requirement of intentional or reckless conduct that is extreme and outrageous and causes severe emotional distress. Sabat's testimony regarding Edwards' continuous harassment, including flipping her off in front of her child and the dangerous vehicular incidents that made Sabat 'scared out of her mind,' was sufficient evidence for the jury to award damages for this tort. The court also found no abuse of discretion in allowing unlisted witnesses to testify to impeach Edwards’ testimony about her temperament, no error in using a demonstrative aid during closing arguments that merely recapped evidence, and no violation of a pretrial order by allowing a polygraph examiner to testify since no mention was made of the polygraph, its results, or the examiner’s occupation, only Fields' prior statements.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high standard for overturning a jury's verdict on appeal in Georgia, emphasizing that it will be affirmed if there is 'any evidence' to support it. It clearly defines the elements of assault, notably that physical contact is not required, and outlines the broad scope of 'extreme and outrageous' conduct that can give rise to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The decision also provides guidance on trial court discretion regarding evidentiary matters, affirming that such rulings will generally be upheld unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown, particularly concerning witness testimony for impeachment and the proper use of demonstrative aids or carefully redacted testimony (e.g., related to polygraphs).
