Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Forkner, 471 S.E.2d 30 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Forkner, 471 S.E.2d 30 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: KOS LIMITED v. CHRISTINA MICHELLE DOCKERY (gactapp, 2024-03-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) KOS LIMITED v. CHRISTINA MICHELLE DOCKERY
Ga. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
On the other hand, we have previously held that a party can waive the right to apportionment, see Trabue v. Atlanta Women’s Specialists, 349 Ga. App. 223 , 231 (2) ( 825 SE2d 586 ) (2019), and we have also recognized that “one cannot waive the right to participate in a damages hearing, passively acquiesce to [alleged] deficient procedures, . . . then contest the alleged deficiencies on appeal.”Wal-Mart Stores v. Forkner, 221 Ga. App. 209, 210 (2) ( 471 SE2d 30 ) (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Troy Avery v. D. Stephan Schneider, as Parent and Next Friend of Ashton L. Schneider
Ga. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
We cannot ignore the fact that any error would be “of [Troy’s] own making due to [his] failure to appear at the damages hearing and participate in the proceedings despite being afforded an opportunity to do so.” Wal-Mart Stores v. Forkner, 221 Ga. App. 209, 211 (2) ( 471 SE2d 30 ) (1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lawrence v. Direct Mortgage Lenders Corp.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Shaw v. Ruiz, 207 Ga. App. 299, 300 ( 428 SE2d 98 ) (1993); Wal-Mart Stores v. Forkner, 221 Ga. App. 209, 210 ( 471 SE2d 30 ) (1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Drug Emporium, Inc. v. Peaks (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Wal-Mart Stores v. Forkner, 221 Ga. App. 209, 210 (1) ( 471 SE2d 30 ), where the trial court determined that Wal-Mart’s conduct was malicious and wilful during a bench trial on damages and which relied upon Hill, supra, is distinguishable and is not controlling as to this issue.
discussed Cited "see" Wise Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Rieser-Roth (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
Dorothy Rieser-Roth, pro se. 1 198 Ga. App. 653 ( 402 SE2d 753 ) (1991). 2 Id. at 656 (3); see Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Hill, 252 Ga. App. 774, 775 (2) ( 556 SE2d 468 ) (2001) (applying Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Brown, supra); Drug Emporium v. Peaks, 227 Ga. App. 121, 124 (2) ( 488 SE2d 500 ) (1997) (same). 3 210 Ga. App. 824 ( 437 SE2d 801 ) (1993). 4 Id. at 825 ; see Wal-Mart Stores v. Forkner, 221 Ga. App. 209, 210 (1) ( 471 SE2d 30 ) (1996) (applying Hill). 5 T.A.I.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Covington Square Associates, LLC v. Ingles Markets, Inc. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Wal-Mart Stores v. Forkner, 221 Ga. App. 209, 210 ( 471 SE2d 30 ) (1996) (following bench trial on damages, trial court awarded plaintiff punitive damages).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." INFINITE ENERGY, INC. v. Cottrell (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Herndon, Inc., 203 Ga. App. 580, 581 (5) ( 417 SE2d 383 ) (1992); see also Hart v. Northside Hosp., 291 Ga. App. 208, 209 (1) ( 661 SE2d 576 ) (2008) (a party’s failure to faithfully engage in discovery “may not be remedied by the exclusion of probative trial evidence”). 9 A & S Group, Inc. v. Murray, 291 Ga. App. 331, 334-335 (2) ( 661 SE2d 701 ) (2008) (trial court’s damages award will be affirmed “ ‘if there is any evidence showing with [a] reasonable certainty the amount of damages’ ”). 10 OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (d) (1). 11 OCGA §51-12-5.1 (d) (2). 12 OCGA §51-12-5.1 (c). 13 S…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Chemtall, Inc. v. Citi-Chem, Inc. (2×)
S.D. Ga. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
As for punitive damages, see James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 309-11 (5th Cir.1993) (evidentiary hearing was not required before entering punitive damages award in fraud suit by group of investors where district court was familiar with defendant's conduct by virtue of litigation which has been pending before court for over seven years); Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co., Inc., 951 F.2d 504, 509 (2nd Cir.1991) (a district court is not required to hold a full evidentiary hearing prior to awarding punitive damages to plaintiffs in a breach of contract action where the defendant has indicated it will not …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Patray v. Northwest Publishing, Inc. (2×)
S.D. Ga. · 1996 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Wal-Mart Stores, Inc v. Forkner, 221 Ga.App. 209 , 471 S.E.2d 30 (1996) (awarding punitive damages, in default, to plaintiff who recovered only on tort claims).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v.
Forkner
A96A0477.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Apr 30, 1996.
471 S.E.2d 30
1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 432
McLain & Merritt, Howard M. Lessinger, Anthony A. Rowell, for , appellant., Donald B. Lowe III, Jan R. Gilbert, for appellee.
Harold R. Banke.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
Judge Harold R. Banke.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) appeals the punitive damages awarded by the default judgment entered on behalf of Tommy O. Forkner.

Forkner sued Wal-Mart for assault and battery and false imprisonment and sought general and punitive damages. Forkner’s complaint alleged that Wal-Mart had acted wilfully with conscious indifference to consequences and an entire want of care. After Wal-Mart failed to file an answer or defensive pleadings, despite being properly served, the trial court entered a default judgment on the issue of liability. Prior to the trial to determine damages, Wal-Mart received notice of the default judgment and also of the pending damages hearing. Despite this notice, Wal-Mart failed to make an appearance, and[*210] Forkner, as the sole witness, testified at the bench trial on damages. In awarding damages, the trial court specifically determined that Wal-Mart’s “agents and employees acted in a grossly negligent manner by falsely accusing Plaintiff of committing theft by shoplifting and by falsely imprisoning Plaintiff” and that Wal-Mart’s conduct was “malicious and willful.” The court awarded Forkner general damages, punitive damages, and court costs in the amount of $50,110. Held:

1. We reject Wal-Mart’s contention that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to make a specific finding through a special verdict form that punitive damages were awardable as required by OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (d) (1). Wal-Mart’s argument pedantically seeks to exalt form over substance since the trial court’s choice of language on the face of the judgment shows an implicit finding that Wal-Mart’s wilful and malicious misconduct justified the award of punitive damages. See Hill v. Johnson, 210 Ga. App. 824, 825 (437 SE2d 801) (1993). The trial court set forth four pages of findings of fact and conclusions of law making it abundantly clear that it deemed that WalMart’s actions in falsely imprisoning Forkner and engaging in assault and battery constituted wilful and malicious misconduct under OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (b). Even if we assume, without deciding, that the trial court erred by not making a specific finding on a verdict form that punitive damages were authorized, and in so doing deviated from the requirements of OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (d) (1), Wal-Mart has failed to show any harm due to that deviation. See Burnette v. McCarter, 211 Ga. App. 781 (440 SE2d 488) (1994); Hill, 210 Ga. App. at 825.

2. Similarly, we reject Wal-Mart’s contention that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to state the specific amount of punitive damages and by failing to separate punitive damages from compensatory damages. As we have previously held, one cannot waive the right to participate in a damages hearing, passively acquiesce to deficient procedures under OCGA § 51-12-5.1, then contest the alleged deficiencies on appeal. Hill, 210 Ga. App. at 825. See also Erwin v. Gibson, 205 Ga. App. 136, 137 (421 SE2d 752) (1992).

Nor do we find persuasive Wal-Mart’s contention that the purported deficiencies rendered the judgment void on its face and that enforcement of the judgment would result in a manifest injustice. Although the judgment fails to separate general and punitive damages, we believe that this omission was harmless error under these facts. Compare Hill, 210 Ga. App. at 825; and Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Brown, 198 Ga. App. 653, 656 (3) (402 SE2d 753) (1991) (judgment defective due to multiple flaws including a failure to find a specific intent to harm and an obvious error in the calculation of the amount of compensatory damages).

[*211] Decided April 30, 1996. McLain & Merritt, Howard M. Lessinger, Anthony A. Rowell, for , appellant. Donald B. Lowe III, Jan R. Gilbert, for appellee.

Because Wal-Mart failed to establish harm as well as error as required on appeal, we find Wal-Mart’s claims are without merit. OCGA § 9-11-61; Miller Grading Contractors v. Ga. Fed. Savings & Loan Assn., 247 Ga. 730, 733-734 (3) (279 SE2d 442) (1981); Baker v. Baker, 194 Ga. App. 477, 480 (390 SE2d 892) (1990). Nor do we choose to ignore the fact that Wal-Mart’s situation is of its own making due to its failure to appear at the damages hearing and participate in the proceedings despite being afforded an opportunity to do so.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J, and Johnson, J., concur.