Schriever v. Maddox

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the subsequent treating physician’s alleged negligence were not intervening, but were very similar to the initial physician’s negligence, and therefore, merely compounded the initial 18 physician’s negligence
• “[S]ince the company doctor was no longer a party to the action,” the case was no longer “an action [] brought against more than one person” for apportionment purposes
• \We have repeatedly held that a court's instructing a jury on lost earnings as a category of recoverable damages is reversible error where the plaintiff has not presented evidence of the degree to which the injury reasonably affected the plaintiff's past and future income.\
• error in jury instructions warranted retrial on damages only
• interpreting OCGA § 51-12-33 (1983)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).