## Facts

- A father and his then-wife formed a family limited partnership for estate planning and transferred interests to their five children, including the defendant son; the partnership was funded largely with valuable stock acquired during the father’s prior employment.
- The partnership purchased a lake house in South Carolina; the father titled the deed in his own name to obtain tax benefits.
- The son claimed the father’s actions violated the partnership agreement and fiduciary duties; the dispute proceeded to arbitration, which resulted in an award favorable to the son.
- During the dispute, the son allegedly made threats of physical violence; the father and siblings obtained a restraining order against the son.
- Despite the restraining order, the son went to the lake house to confront the father, who was 59 and disabled after multiple back surgeries with spinal rods; the son was a former college football defensive player.
- At trial, evidence showed the son repeatedly struck the father, used a taser, and slammed the father’s head against the floor, causing a concussion.
- The father filed a civil action for assault, battery, and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the punitive-damages jury instructions misstated the clear-and-convincing burden or standard for punitive damages in the liability phase of a bifurcated trial.
2. Whether references to the statutory punitive-damages cap during the first phase constituted reversible error.
3. Whether allowing testimony about the validity of the underlying arbitration award was an abuse of discretion.
4. Whether the punitive-damages award was unconstitutionally excessive under the Due Process Clause and Georgia law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the judgment denying the son’s motion for new trial.
- The punitive-damages charge, read as a whole, did not misstate the law or mislead the jury.
- Any discussion related to the statutory cap in the first phase did not require reversal under harmless-error principles.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the father’s testimony about the arbitration award as relevant background and motive evidence.
- The $375,000 punitive award (with $30,000 compensatory damages) was not grossly excessive under federal due-process guideposts or Georgia law.

## Legal Principles

- Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(b), punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or an entire want of care showing conscious indifference to consequences.
- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole; reversal is warranted only if the charge, taken as a whole, is legally incorrect or likely to mislead the jury.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and require a showing of harmful error to justify reversal.
- Constitutional excessiveness review of punitive damages applies the *Gore*/*State Farm* guideposts: reprehensibility, ratio to compensatory damages, and comparison to potential civil or criminal penalties.
- A ratio exceeding single digits may be upheld when compensatory damages are relatively low and the misconduct is intentional, violent, and highly reprehensible, particularly where the victim is vulnerable.

## Conclusion

The court upheld compensatory and punitive damages for an intentional, violent assault, finding no reversible instructional or evidentiary error and concluding that the punitive award was consistent with Georgia punitive-damages law and federal due-process limits.


Fassnacht v. Moler, 358 Ga. App. 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)