breach standard in Georgia

2014A cause of action for negligence requires “(1) [a] legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection 4 between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.” Bradley Center v. Wessner, 250 Ga. 199, 200 ( 296 SE2d 693 ) (1982).

2014A cause of action for negligence requires “(1) [a] legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection 4 between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.” Bradley Center v. Wessner, 250 Ga. 199, 200 ( 296 SE2d 693 ) (1982).

2016Claims of active negligence require the same proof as other simple negligence claims: (1) A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiffl.] (Citation omitted.) Phillips v. South West Mechanical Contractors, 254 Ga. App. 144, 145 (1) ( 561 SE2d 471 ) (2002).

2016Claims of active negligence require the same proof as other simple negligence claims: (1) A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiffl.] (Citation omitted.) Phillips v. South West Mechanical Contractors, 254 Ga. App. 144, 145 (1) ( 561 SE2d 471 ) (2002).

1989In this state a cause of action for negligence requires “ ‘(1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.’ Lee Street Auto Sales v. Warren, 102 Ga. App. 345 (1) ( 116 SE2d 243 ) (1960).” Bradley Center v. Wessner, 161 Ga. App. 576, 580 ( 287 SE2d 716 )

1989In this state a cause of action for negligence requires “ ‘(1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.’ Lee Street Auto Sales v. Warren, 102 Ga. App. 345 (1) ( 116 SE2d 243 ) (1960).” Bradley Center v. Wessner, 161 Ga. App. 576, 580 ( 287 SE2d 716 )

2000To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, the following elements are essential: “(1) A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.” Lee Street Auto Sales v. Warren, 102 Ga. App. 345 (1) ( 116 SE2d 243 ) (1960).

2000To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, the following elements are essential: “(1) A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.” Lee Street Auto Sales v. Warren, 102 Ga. App. 345 (1) ( 116 SE2d 243 ) (1960).

2025To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, a plaintiff must show (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) loss or damage to plaintiff’s legally protected interest resulting from the breach. 5 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hunsucker, 304 Ga. App. at 201 (1). “[T]he mere fact that an accident happened and the plaintiff may have sustained injuries or damages affo

2025To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, a plaintiff must show (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) loss or damage to plaintiff’s legally protected interest resulting from the breach. 5 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hunsucker, 304 Ga. App. at 201 (1). “[T]he mere fact that an accident happened and the plaintiff may have sustained injuries or damages affo

2005See Brown v. All-Tech Investment Group, 265 Ga. App. 889, 893 (1) ( 595 SE2d 517 ) (2004) (“To state a cause of action for negligence under Georgia law, the following elements are essential: (1) Alegal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiffs legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.”) (citation omitte

2005See Brown v. All-Tech Investment Group, 265 Ga. App. 889, 893 (1) ( 595 SE2d 517 ) (2004) (“To state a cause of action for negligence under Georgia law, the following elements are essential: (1) Alegal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiffs legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.”) (citation omitte

2003Phillips v. South West Mechanical Contractors, 254 Ga. App. 144, 145 (1) ( 561 SE2d 471 ) (2002); Berry v. Hamilton, 246 Ga. App. 608 -609 *739 ( 541 SE2d 428 ) (2000); Tuggle v. Helms, 231 Ga. App. 899, 901 ( 499 SE2d 365 ) (1998).

2003Phillips v. South West Mechanical Contractors, 254 Ga. App. 144, 145 (1) ( 561 SE2d 471 ) (2002); Berry v. Hamilton, 246 Ga. App. 608 -609 *739 ( 541 SE2d 428 ) (2000); Tuggle v. Helms, 231 Ga. App. 899, 901 ( 499 SE2d 365 ) (1998).

1999To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, the following elements are essential: (1) A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty. *158 Brown v. RFC Mgmt., 189 Ga. App. 603, 604 ( 376 SE2d 691 ) (1988).

1999To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, the following elements are essential: (1) A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty. *158 Brown v. RFC Mgmt., 189 Ga. App. 603, 604 ( 376 SE2d 691 ) (1988).

2019B., 300 Ga. 840, 841 (1) ( 797 SE2d 87 ) (2017) (“[T]o recover for injuries caused by another’s negligence, a plaintiff must show four elements: a duty, a breach of that duty, causation and damages.” (punctuation omitted)); Hunsucker, 304 Ga. App. at 201 (1) (“To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, a plaintiff must show (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) l

2019B., 300 Ga. 840, 841 (1) ( 797 SE2d 87 ) (2017) (“[T]o recover for injuries caused by another’s negligence, a plaintiff must show four elements: a duty, a breach of that duty, causation and damages.” (punctuation omitted)); Hunsucker, 304 Ga. App. at 201 (1) (“To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, a plaintiff must show (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) l

2018See Knight v. Roberts , 316 Ga. App. 599 , 605-606 (1) (a), 730 S.E.2d 78 (2012) (opinion testimony of three different physicians that an ER physician's misdiagnosis contributed to the patient's death 10 days after being treated at the ER and after the patient had been treated by three additional physicians at two additional hospitals, was sufficient to create a question of fact on the issue of causation; the physicians' opinions were based on the review of medical files and their significant experience either as ER physicians or as specialists in treating the plaintiff's undiagnosed condition

2018See Knight v. Roberts , 316 Ga. App. 599 , 605-606 (1) (a), 730 S.E.2d 78 (2012) (opinion testimony of three different physicians that an ER physician's misdiagnosis contributed to the patient's death 10 days after being treated at the ER and after the patient had been treated by three additional physicians at two additional hospitals, was sufficient to create a question of fact on the issue of causation; the physicians' opinions were based on the review of medical files and their significant experience either as ER physicians or as specialists in treating the plaintiff's undiagnosed condition

2013(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Walker v. Aderhold Properties, 303 Ga. App. 710, 712 (1) ( 694 SE2d 119 ) (2010).

2013(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Walker v. Aderhold Properties, 303 Ga. App. 710, 712 (1) ( 694 SE2d 119 ) (2010).

1996“A cause of action for negligence requires (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dupree v. Keller Indus., 199 Ga. App. 138, 141 (1) ( 404 SE2d 291 ) (1991).

1996“A cause of action for negligence requires (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dupree v. Keller Indus., 199 Ga. App. 138, 141 (1) ( 404 SE2d 291 ) (1991).

2012As the plaintiff asserting a cause of action for negligence, Martin bears the burden of establish four essential elements: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty. 10 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Freeman v. Eichholz, 308 Ga. App. 18, 20 (1

2012As the plaintiff asserting a cause of action for negligence, Martin bears the burden of establish four essential elements: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty. 10 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Freeman v. Eichholz, 308 Ga. App. 18, 20 (1

2010See Snellgrove v. Hyatt Corp., 277 Ga. App. 119, 122 (1), 625 S.E.2d 517 (2006).

2010See Snellgrove v. Hyatt Corp., 277 Ga. App. 119, 122 (1), 625 S.E.2d 517 (2006).

2008(Citation omitted.) Shortnacy v. North Atlanta Internal Medicine, 252 Ga. App. 321, 325 (2) ( 556 SE2d 209 ) (2001).

2008(Citation omitted.) Shortnacy v. North Atlanta Internal Medicine, 252 Ga. App. 321, 325 (2) ( 556 SE2d 209 ) (2001).

1999In particular, this court has held that in a suit for legal malpractice, proof that the attorney’s negligence proximately caused the client’s harm is necessary for recovery.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Whitehead v. Cuffie, 185 Ga. App. 351, 352 ( 364 SE2d 87 ) (1987); see also OCGA § 51-1-8.

1999In particular, this court has held that in a suit for legal malpractice, proof that the attorney’s negligence proximately caused the client’s harm is necessary for recovery.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Whitehead v. Cuffie, 185 Ga. App. 351, 352 ( 364 SE2d 87 ) (1987); see also OCGA § 51-1-8.

1997“To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, the following elements are essential: (1) A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.” (Punctuation omitted.) Anneewakee, Inc. v. Hall, 196 Ga. App. 365, 367 (1) ( 396 SE2d 9 ) (1990).

1997“To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, the following elements are essential: (1) A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.” (Punctuation omitted.) Anneewakee, Inc. v. Hall, 196 Ga. App. 365, 367 (1) ( 396 SE2d 9 ) (1990).

2012The mere fact that an accident happened and a plaintiff was injured affords no basis for recovery unless the plaintiff carries [his] burden of proof and shows that the accident was caused by specific acts of negligence of the defendant. 3 (Citations omitted.) Berry v. Hamilton, 246 Ga. App. 608, 608-609 ( 541 SE2d 428 ) (2000).

2012The mere fact that an accident happened and a plaintiff was injured affords no basis for recovery unless the plaintiff carries [his] burden of proof and shows that the accident was caused by specific acts of negligence of the defendant. 3 (Citations omitted.) Berry v. Hamilton, 246 Ga. App. 608, 608-609 ( 541 SE2d 428 ) (2000).

2025(Footnote omitted.) Ireland v. Williams, 351 Ga. App. 124, 127 (1) ( 830 SE2d 538 ) (2019). “[T]he mere fact that an accident happened and the plaintiff may have sustained injuries or damages affords no basis for recovery against a particular defendant unless the plaintiff carries the burden of proof and shows that such accident and damages were caused by specific acts of negligence on the part of that defendant.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) McQuaig, 269 Ga. App. at 237 .

2019B., 300 Ga. 840, 841 (1) ( 797 SE2d 87 ) (2017) (“[T]o recover for injuries caused by another’s negligence, a plaintiff must show four elements: a duty, a breach of that duty, causation and damages.” (punctuation omitted)); Hunsucker, 304 Ga. App. at 201 (1) (“To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, a plaintiff must show (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) l

2025Center v. Hawkins, 288 Ga. App. 840, 843-844 (1) ( 655 SE2d 823 ) (2007) (discussing distinction between a claim for professional negligence and a claim for wrongful death — an intentional tort based on a reckless disregard of the consequences), disapproved on other grounds by Harrison v. McAfee, 338 Ga. App. 393, 402 (3) ( 788 SE2d 872 ) (2016); see also Mableton Parkway CVS v. Salter, 273 Ga. App. 477, 483 (2) (c) ( 615 SE2d 558 ) (2005) (a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on negligent conduct cannot stand). 9 And, although Dr. Umpierrez’s expert opined that she,

2025Center v. Hawkins, 288 Ga. App. 840, 843-844 (1) ( 655 SE2d 823 ) (2007) (discussing distinction between a claim for professional negligence and a claim for wrongful death — an intentional tort based on a reckless disregard of the consequences), disapproved on other grounds by Harrison v. McAfee, 338 Ga. App. 393, 402 (3) ( 788 SE2d 872 ) (2016); see also Mableton Parkway CVS v. Salter, 273 Ga. App. 477, 483 (2) (c) ( 615 SE2d 558 ) (2005) (a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on negligent conduct cannot stand). 9 And, although Dr. Umpierrez’s expert opined that she,

2025In a cause of action based on negligence (such as this one), Johnson bears the burden of establishing four essential elements: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.28 26 See Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622, 624 (1) (a) ( 697 SE2d 779 ) (2010) (“

2025In a cause of action based on negligence (such as this one), Johnson bears the burden of establishing four essential elements: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.28 26 See Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622, 624 (1) (a) ( 697 SE2d 779 ) (2010) (“

2025In a cause of action based on negligence (such as this one), Johnson bears the burden of establishing four essential elements: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.28 26 See Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622, 624 (1) (a) ( 697 SE2d 779 ) (2010) (“

2025In a cause of action based on negligence (such as this one), Johnson bears the burden of establishing four essential elements: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.28 26 See Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622, 624 (1) (a) ( 697 SE2d 779 ) (2010) (“

2025In a cause of action based on negligence (such as this one), Johnson bears the burden of establishing four essential elements: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.28 26 See Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622, 624 (1) (a) ( 697 SE2d 779 ) (2010) (“

2025Center v. Hawkins, 288 Ga. App. 840, 843-844 (1) ( 655 SE2d 823 ) (2007) (discussing distinction between a claim for professional negligence and a claim for wrongful death — an intentional tort based on a reckless disregard of the consequences), disapproved on other grounds by Harrison v. McAfee, 338 Ga. App. 393, 402 (3) ( 788 SE2d 872 ) (2016); see also Mableton Parkway CVS v. Salter, 273 Ga. App. 477, 483 (2) (c) ( 615 SE2d 558 ) (2005) (a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on negligent conduct cannot stand). 9 And, although Dr. Umpierrez’s expert opined that she,

2025Center v. Hawkins, 288 Ga. App. 840, 843-844 (1) ( 655 SE2d 823 ) (2007) (discussing distinction between a claim for professional negligence and a claim for wrongful death — an intentional tort based on a reckless disregard of the consequences), disapproved on other grounds by Harrison v. McAfee, 338 Ga. App. 393, 402 (3) ( 788 SE2d 872 ) (2016); see also Mableton Parkway CVS v. Salter, 273 Ga. App. 477, 483 (2) (c) ( 615 SE2d 558 ) (2005) (a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on negligent conduct cannot stand). 9 And, although Dr. Umpierrez’s expert opined that she,

2025Center v. Hawkins, 288 Ga. App. 840, 843-844 (1) ( 655 SE2d 823 ) (2007) (discussing distinction between a claim for professional negligence and a claim for wrongful death — an intentional tort based on a reckless disregard of the consequences), disapproved on other grounds by Harrison v. McAfee, 338 Ga. App. 393, 402 (3) ( 788 SE2d 872 ) (2016); see also Mableton Parkway CVS v. Salter, 273 Ga. App. 477, 483 (2) (c) ( 615 SE2d 558 ) (2005) (a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on negligent conduct cannot stand). 9 And, although Dr. Umpierrez’s expert opined that she,

2025Center v. Hawkins, 288 Ga. App. 840, 843-844 (1) ( 655 SE2d 823 ) (2007) (discussing distinction between a claim for professional negligence and a claim for wrongful death — an intentional tort based on a reckless disregard of the consequences), disapproved on other grounds by Harrison v. McAfee, 338 Ga. App. 393, 402 (3) ( 788 SE2d 872 ) (2016); see also Mableton Parkway CVS v. Salter, 273 Ga. App. 477, 483 (2) (c) ( 615 SE2d 558 ) (2005) (a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on negligent conduct cannot stand). 9 And, although Dr. Umpierrez’s expert opined that she,

2025(Footnote omitted.) Ireland v. Williams, 351 Ga. App. 124, 127 (1) ( 830 SE2d 538 ) (2019). “[T]he mere fact that an accident happened and the plaintiff may have sustained injuries or damages affords no basis for recovery against a particular defendant unless the plaintiff carries the burden of proof and shows that such accident and damages were caused by specific acts of negligence on the part of that defendant.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) McQuaig, 269 Ga. App. at 237 .

2025(Footnote omitted.) Ireland v. Williams, 351 Ga. App. 124, 127 (1) ( 830 SE2d 538 ) (2019). “[T]he mere fact that an accident happened and the plaintiff may have sustained injuries or damages affords no basis for recovery against a particular defendant unless the plaintiff carries the burden of proof and shows that such accident and damages were caused by specific acts of negligence on the part of that defendant.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) McQuaig, 269 Ga. App. at 237 .

2024Specifically, the instruction shown to the jury in writing was as follows: Physicians do not guarantee the results of treatment, and in the absence of a breach of the standard of care, proof that the outcome of treatment was different than that expected neither establishes [n]or supports an inference that the standard of care was violated.35 . 34 Payne v. Thompson, 234 Ga. App. 533, 533 ( 507 SE2d 257 ) (1998) (punctuation omitted); see McCorkle v. Dep’t of Transp., 257 Ga. App. 397, 404 (4) ( 571 SE2d 160 ) (2002) (“When an error in the charge of the court is shown to exist, it is presumed to

2024Specifically, the instruction shown to the jury in writing was as follows: Physicians do not guarantee the results of treatment, and in the absence of a breach of the standard of care, proof that the outcome of treatment was different than that expected neither establishes [n]or supports an inference that the standard of care was violated.35 . 34 Payne v. Thompson, 234 Ga. App. 533, 533 ( 507 SE2d 257 ) (1998) (punctuation omitted); see McCorkle v. Dep’t of Transp., 257 Ga. App. 397, 404 (4) ( 571 SE2d 160 ) (2002) (“When an error in the charge of the court is shown to exist, it is presumed to