Love v. McKnight

John McKnight was rear-ended by Anthony Love on I-20 in DeKalb County during stop-and-go traffic. Love pleaded guilty to following too closely, and McKnight also pointed to evidence that Love had been using his cell phone. McKnight sued for damages and asked for litigation expenses under a Georgia law that allows such expenses when a defendant acted in 'bad faith.' The trial court and the Court of Appeals of Georgia both said a jury could decide whether Love's traffic law violations showed bad faith. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed. It explained that decades of its own cases require something more than ordinary carelessness, conduct showing intentional wrongdoing or reckless disregard of known dangers, to count as bad faith. Because Love's traffic violations, including a strict-liability offense that requires no intent to prove, showed at most negligence, the court found there was not enough evidence for a jury to decide the bad-faith question, and it reversed the Court of Appeals.

Bad faith under OCGA § 13-6-11 requires conduct showing intentional wrongdoing or a reckless disregard of known harmful consequences, and mere negligence, including a negligent violation of a traffic law, is not enough to send the question of bad-faith litigation expenses to a jury.

The ruling limits when Georgia drivers and other defendants in car accident lawsuits can be forced to pay the other side's attorney fees and litigation costs. Plaintiffs' lawyers can no longer rely on a mere traffic ticket, without more, to seek those extra expenses at trial.

Reversed

1. The court reviewed decades of its own cases interpreting 'bad faith' under OCGA § 13-6-11, a statute letting juries award litigation expenses when a defendant acted in bad faith, and found they consistently require conduct that is intentional, wanton, reckless, or consciously indifferent to consequences.
2. The court explained that mere negligence or bad judgment has never been enough to show bad faith; the conduct must involve something like a dishonest purpose, moral wrongdoing, or breach of a known duty motivated by ill will or self-interest.
3. Applying that standard, the court found that traffic offenses are strict-liability crimes, meaning they can be violated without any culpable intent, so a traffic violation alone cannot by itself prove the intentional or reckless mindset bad faith requires.
4. The court concluded that the Court of Appeals of Georgia's reliance on two prior appellate decisions was misplaced, because in both of those cases the bad-faith finding rested on more than a bare traffic violation, such as a driver's conscious choice not to warn a pedestrian or a landlord's total disregard of fire safety codes.
5. Reviewing the actual evidence about Love, including that he was driving under the speed limit, had already applied his brakes, and may have been on a hands-free phone call, the court found nothing showing intentional or reckless conduct beyond ordinary negligence, so the bad-faith claim should not have gone to the jury.

• litigation expenses
• bad faith standard
• car accident lawsuit
• traffic law violations
• attorney fees