Lee v. Smith
Georgia Court of Appeals
816 S.E.2d 784 (2018)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
David Smith (plaintiff) sued Donggue Lee (defendant) for injuries he sustained in a car accident caused by Lee’s negligence. Smith’s lawsuit included claims for lost future earnings and for diminished earning capacity. Lee admitted fault but contested damages. At the time of the accident, Smith was a collegiate high jumper. Prior to trial, Smith graduated from college and became a professional high jumper. At trial, Smith’s doctor testified that Smith’s injury was permanent and that it affected his performance as a high jumper. Smith’s agent testified that but for his injuries, Smith, who was ranked fifth in the world, would have earned at least $1 million over the course of his career. According to the agent, if Smith had not been injured, he would have been able to negotiate a contract that included incentive bonuses for reaching minimum jump heights and that Smith had the potential to earn $2.5 million from the contract. Smith’s agent further testified that, based on Smith’s ranking, he would have had the potential to earn between $4 million and $6 million over the course of his career. The jury awarded Smith $2 million. Lee moved for a directed verdict, arguing that Smith’s claim was speculative. The trial court denied the motion, and Lee appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rickman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
