THI RD DI VI SI ON DOYLE, P. J. , HODGES and W

A TKI NS, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

A ugust 21, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 6 9 5, A 24A 06 96

. CI T Y OF A TLA N TA v. PERK I N S; a n d
v ic e v ersa.
H O D G E S , J u d ge.
This c ase inv o lv es negligenc e and nu isa n c e c laims b ro u ght by Grego ry
Theo d o r e Perk ins against the City o f A t lanta. Perk ins alleged he w as inj u red w hen he
step ped o n a City water meter lid that f lip p ed into the water meter bo x, cau sing him

to f a ll. A j u ry aw ard ed nearly $2. 4 millio n to Perk ins. I n Case Nu mber A 24A 06 9 5, the City ap p eals the trial c o u rt’ s imp o sitio n o f sp o liatio n sanc tio ns a nd the ad missio n o f

c ertain e v id e nc e. I n Case Nu mber A 24A 06 9 6 , Perk in s ap p eals the trial c o u rt’ s
d ec isio n granting the City’ s mo tio n f o r j u d gment no tw ithstand ing t he v erd ic t and

o v e rtu rning the j u ry’ s a w a r d o f OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 11 atto rney f ees t o him. Fo r the reaso ns
that f o llo w , w e af

f irm in bo th c ases.The re c o r d sho ws that the City o w ns and maintains a c o mp lex water system,

c o n t a i n ing ap p ro ximately 1 6 0,000 w ater meters, to p r o vid e water serv ic e to Ci ty
resid ents. M eter s a r e u nd e rgro u nd bo xes t hat ho use water- usage measu ring

c o mp onents and are u s u ally c o v ered by an o v al o r ro u nd metal lid . I n 2005 o r 2006 , the City began mo d e rniz ing the w ater meter s y s t e m a n d c o ntrac ted w ith p riv a t e

c o mp a nies, inc lu d ing K &V M eter Au to matio n, LLC ( “ K &V ” ), to u p d ate the system

to an a u to mated read er a nd f it the b o xes w ith new or retro f itted lid s to assist in the

au to mated meter read ing. Du ring the mo d erniz atio n, v ario us bo x siz es w ere used that

requ ired d if

f erent typ es o f lid s . One lid measu red 1 8 1 /8 inc hes by 9 7 /8 inc hes (“ the
smaller- siz ed lid ” ) w hile ano ther measu red 1 9 1 /4 inc hes by 9 1/4 inc hes (“ the largersiz ed lid ” ). The lid s also v aried in ho w they sec u red to the bo xes: lid s had z ero , tw o,

o r f o u r p ro ngs, and so me o f

the lid s had lo c k ing mec hanisms w hile o thers d id no t. J o nathan W e bb, an area su p er v i so r f o r the City, d ep o sed that the City
instru c ted W atershed Dep artment emp lo y ees to rep lac e the existing lid s w ith betterf itting lid s, esp e c ially if the emp lo yee o bserv ed an ill- f itting lid

. N atalie K night, a City

rep resentativ e d esignated u nd er OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 30 (b) (6 ), a nd L anc e H o llis, a senio r City insp ec to r, c o nf

irmed this d irec tiv e. The sp ec if ic instru c tio n w as to f

o l l o w t he

2sp ec if

ic atio ns requ iring lid s to f it sec u rely w itho u t ro c k ing a nd to rep lac e lid s that d id

no t p ro p erly f

it. Lid rep lac ement w as no t alw ays d o c u mented , bu t the City rep lac ed

“ [ p ]ro bably a tho u s and ” ill- f itting lid s. The City w as w ell aw are that meter lid f it w as

a p r o blem in the City a nd sent p o stc ard s to all its c u sto mers u rging them to rep o rt

meter lid issu e s, w hic h c usto mers d id , bu t the City k new there w ere still tho u sand s o f
lid s that d id no t f

it the bo xes c o rrec tly.

I n f ac t , in 2007 , the City A u d ito r ’ s Of f ic e estimated that ou t o f a sa mp le siz e

o f 1 38 o f the 1 2,37 7 small meters installed , 41 p erc ent “had a lid that d id n’ t f it” and

7 2 p erc ent “ had an unlo c k [ed ] lid [. ]” “ M any o f the meter site s . . . o b serv ed had

no tic eable gap s betw e en the m eter bo x and l id

. ” The A ud ito r’ s Of f ic e d etermined
that meter lid s that d id no t f it meter bo xes c o uld c a u se a p o tentially haz ard ou s

c o nd itio n and rec o mmend ed that the C i t y p e rf o rm p erio d ic insp ec tio ns. The City

au d ito r inf

o r m e d t he City t hat relying o n c u sto m er r ep o rts r egard ing ill- f itting lid s w as
inad equ a te and rec o mmend ed that the City d ev ise a maintenanc e plan to id entif y the
ill- f itting lid s and c o rrec t them.
Gw end o lyn B u rns, a City c laims ad v iso r and 30 (b) (6 ) rep resentativ e , testif ied
that the City w as w ell aw are that a lid that d id no t f it the w ater meter bo x wo u ld hav e

3a natu ral tend enc y to f lip when so meo ne step p ed o n it. She d ep o sed that the City had general k no w led ge t hat there w as a lid p ro blem and t hat the lid s d id no t alw ays f it the

meter b o xes that K &V installed

. I n 201 2, B u rns w ro te: “ A ltho u gh there is no rec o rd

no tic e to meter p ro blems a t the su bj ec t lo c a tio n [ w here Perk ins fell], t he City w as w ell

aw are that it had sev eral tho u s and meters that w ere im p r o p e r l y c o v ered w ith the
inc o rrec t meter lid siz e c reat i n g h a z a r d o u s m e t e r c o nd itio ns. ” H o llis lik ew ise testif ied
that lid s that w ere to o small f o r the meter bo x c ou ld f

lip if step p ed o n.
An g e l e n a K e l l y , a f

ormer City c laims inv estigato r, d e p o sed that sh e i n v e s t i g a t e d

nu mero us c laims o f inj u ries alleged ly rec eiv ed by ind iv id u als af ter “ step p ing o nto a
d ef ec tiv e w ater meter [o r ill- f itting lid ] t hat w as installed by K&V A uto matio n” p rio r

to Perk ins’ ac c id e nt. K elly f o u nd “ l i ability pro bable du e t o lid issu e w ith K &V ” o n

mo st o c c a sio ns.
On Sep tember 3, 201 1 , Perk ins w a s driv ing to v isit f amily w hen he enc o u ntered

a f allen tree limb in the ro ad

. H e sto pp ed and dragged the tree b r anc h o nto the
resid ential p ro p e rty a t 1 8 1 4 D o d so n D r iv e in A tlanta. W hile m o ving the branc h,
Perk ins w alk ed bac k w ard s, glanc ing bac k and w a tc hing f o r the c u rb a s he bac k ed u p . Perk ins claims he step p ed o n a w ater meter and the lid “ k ind o f s lip p ed aw ay” u nd er

4his w eight, alleged ly c a u sing him to f all into the w ater meter p it and tearing his lef t
k nee qu ad ric ep tend o n. I t is u nd isp u ted t hat this w ater meter and lid w as p art o f the City’ s w aterw o rk s s ystem. Perk ins’ d au ghter t o o k p ho to grap hs o f the site later that
d ay.
I m med iately f

ollo w ing the inc id e nt, Perk ins s p o k e wi t h W arren H ayes, the City

c laims inv estigato r su bsequ ently assigned to his c laim, w ho e x p l ained the c laims

p ro c ed ure to him. On Sep temb e r 9 , 2 0 1 1 , s ix d ays af ter t he inc id ent, Perk ins f iled a

c laim rep o rt w ith t he City. The c laim r ep o rt no ted that Perk ins sto p p ed t o remo v e a
limb w hic h w as blo c k ing the street and , as he mo v ed t he limb, he step p ed o n a w ater

meter co ver lo c ated at 1 81 4 D od so n D riv e in A tlant a , f e l l t o the gro u nd , and heard

so mething p op in his leg. The City op ened an inv estigatio n, inf o rming Perk ins o f this

ac tio n in a letter d ated Sep tember 28, 201 1

. 1 A c c o rd ing to H ayes, Perk ins “ w as v ery
p ersistent” and c alled “p o ssibly ev ery o ther d ay, d ef initely mo re than t wic e a w eek

. ”

On N o v ember 7 o r 8, 201 1 , W ebb v isited t he p ro p erty, to o k pho to grap hs o f the

w ater meter and lid , and step ped o n the lid to assess its saf ety. H e d id no t lif

t the lid

1 The City u ltimately d enied Perk ins’ c laim o n the gro und t h a t h e f ailed to p ro v id e med ic al rec o r d s.
5o f

f the b o x o r remo v e the lid

. W ebb w a s no t to ld that so meo ne had been inj u red w hile

w alk ing o n the w ater meter; he believ e d he w as lo o king fo r “ t he lid to be missing w hen they sent [him] ou t there. ” Webb sp ent ap p ro ximately fiv e o r ten minu tes at the s ite
and d etermined that the lid was the c o rrec t siz e a nd sec u rely f it the meter b o x. W e bb

p u rp o rted l y f

o r w ard e d his pho to grap hs to H ayes, b u t H ayes d enied rec eiv ing any
p ho to grap hs, and the City c o u ld no t lo cate the p ho t o grap hs tak e n by W ebb.
Less than t wo mo nths later, so meo ne else to o k a p ic t ure o f the w a ter meter lid

at 1 81 4 Do d so n D r i v e . W e bb w as sho w n the pic tu re d u ring his d ep o sitio n. W e bb

c o u ld no t rec all w hat siz e lid w as on the w ater meter w hen he insp ec ted it, bu t
d e p o sed that the p ic t u re tak en tw o mo nths af ter his inv estigatio n d id no t ap p ear to
d ep ic t the same lid that he insp ec ted

. W hen sho w n tw o pic tu res o f lid s, W ebb stated
that he believ ed o ne p ic tu r e d ep ic t ed an exemp lar o f “ t h e o riginal lid t hat w as
p ro bably o n that bo x[,]” bu t then stated that he co u ld no t “ be su re o f that, w h i c h
lid [,]” and he ad mitted that the p ho to grap hed lid f o u nd o n the w ater meter bo x tw o

m o n t h s af

ter his insp ec tio n w as a d if f erent lid

. H e su rmised that it w as “ p ro bable ”
that so meo ne sw itc hed the lid o n the w ater meter bo x af t er his insp ec tio n.

6I n 201 3, Perk ins hired an atto rney and his atto rney and an exp ert e xamined the

lid at 1 81 4 D od s o n D riv e. I t w a s d e t e r m ined that t he smaller- s iz e d lid w a s o n the

w ater meter bo x at that time. The exp ert no ted t hat the smaller- siz ed lid c o v ering the

w ater meter b o x had the p o ssibility o f f lip p ing or tip p ing into the bo x w hen he step p ed

o n it. Perk ins su b s equ ently f iled a c o mp laint in Fu lto n Co u nty State Co u rt, alleging negligenc e, nu isanc e, and v ic ario u s liability against the City. I n s ho rt, t he c o mp laint
asserted that Perk ins su f

f ered inj u ries af

ter step p ing o n a w a ter meter lid that w as to o
small f o r the meter bo x.
I n A p ril 201 4, B r ian Sp enc er, ano ther c ity insp ec t o r, v isited the p ro perty and

p ho to grap hed the lid

. Sp enc er r ep o rted that t he lid w as lo c k ed and fit t he meter bo x,
bu t he rep lac ed it w ith a new lid as instru c ted by his su p erv iso r. H e d isc o v ered “ lo ts

o f d ebris in the bo x” and a bro k e n “ piec e o f lid ” ins i d e t h e m e t e r bo x. Sp enc er
bro u ght the lid he r e p lac ed and the bro k en p iec e t o t he City W atershed M a nagement
f ac ility, and it w as then transf erred and sto red w ith the legal d ep artment. The lid

p u rp o rted ly sto red at the legal d ep artment w a s the smaller- siz ed lid

. I t is u nd isp u ted that the City c o u ld no t lo c ate the p ho to grap hs Sp enc er to o k.

7I n ad d itio n, W ole R a lp h, a City 30 (b) (6 ) rep resentativ e, d ep o sed that the City

w as u nab l e t o lo c ate the lid that Sp enc er remo v ed

. Ralp h stated in his dep o sitio n:

“ We d o n’ t hav e t hat. W e hav e lid s o f s imilar siz e a nd d imensio n — of the same siz e
and d imensio n. We d o n’ t hav e that ac tu al lid

. ” R a lp h d id no t k no w w hat hap p ened

to the ac t u al lid Sp e nc e r remo v ed bu t assu m ed it had b een lo st. W hen a sk e d , “ A nd
it is the p o sitio n o f the City o f A tlanta to d ay that the lid is l o s t? ” R a l p h resp o nd ed ,

“ T hat the lid — yes, the lid is no t ac c e s sible.

. . . [R]ight no w, w e are no t able to p u t

o u r hand s o n the lid

. ” The City bro u ght tw o lid s to the d ep o s i t i o n and c laimed o ne

o f t he lid s w as the same typ e as t he lid Sp enc er remo v ed f ro m the w a ter meter at issu e
in 201 4. Ralp h, ho w ev e r, c o nc ed ed t hat he d id no t k no w w hether the lid rec o v ered in

201 4 w as the same lid p resent at the time of Perk ins’ ac c id ent, and the City c o nc ed ed
in its resp o nse t o Perk ins’ sp o liatio n mo tio n t hat altho u gh Perk ins “ w as op erating

u nd er the assu mp t i o n . . . that the B rian Sp enc er lid is t he same lid o n whic h [ he]
f ell[,]

. . . [t]he City has no t ad o p ted this assu mp tio n. . . . The City still c anno t tak e the

p o sitio n that the B rian Sp enc e r lid is w i tho u t a d o ubt the o riginal lid o n w hic h [Perk ins] f

e ll. ” Ralp h f

u rther d ep o sed that so me City insp ec to rs wo u ld rep lac e w ater
meter lid s w itho u t a w o rk o rd er and w itho u t inf o rming the City.

8I n 201 9 , Perk ins f iled a mo t i o n f

o r sp o liatio n o f ev id enc e a nd ask ed f o r

sanc tio ns against the City. H e argu ed that t he City lo st o r d estro yed : (i) the meter lid

o n w hic h Perk ins step p ed o n Sep tember 3, 201 1 ; ( i i ) p ho t ograp hs Webb to o k in

N o v ember 201 1 ; and (iii) p ho to grap hs Sp enc er to o k in A pril 201 4. Perk ins asserted
that the City had a d u ty t o p reserv e t he lid a n d pho to grap hs, and the lo ss o r
d estru ctio n o f this ev id enc e p rej u d ic ed his c ase. The City o p p o s e d the mo tio n,

c laiming that Perk ins d id no t need the lid t o p ro v e his c laims and w as no t p rej u d ic ed by the lac k o f

p ho to grap hs sinc e he had o ther p re- s u it p ho to grap hs.
The trial c o u rt issu ed a 37 -p age o rd er gran t i n g Perk ins’ sp o liatio n mo tio n. Sp ec if ic ally, the trial co u rt f

ou nd that the City had a d u ty to p reserv e the water meter
lid and p ho to grap hs:
Onc e the City b ec ame aw are o f Plaintif f ’ s c laim a nd began t o inv estigate, it had a d u ty to p reserv e its pho to grap hs of the meter lid and the w ay it f it o r d id no t f

it o n the meter bo x, as w ell a s t he ac t u al w a t e r meter lid , an d s h o u ld hav e tak en a ll p rec au tio ns to o btain, maintain, and then p reserv e the meter lid itself as w ell as any a nd all p ho to grap hs o f t h e meter lid

.

9The c o urt then w eighed a nu mber o f fac to rs, inc lu ding the p rej u d ic e su f f ered by
Perk ins as a resu lt o f the City’ s sp o liatio n o f th e o r i g i nal w ater meter lid bec au se
Perk ins c o u ld no t c o unter ev id enc e that the lid w a s saf e:
The o p p o rtu nity f

o r testing by Plaintif

f’ s exp erts has been lo st f

o rev er[, and a]s a resu lt, a ny examinatio n, analysis, and testing o n any exemp lar
meter lid s that hav e no w been p ro v id ed simp ly will no t bear the same
resu lts as t ho se bo r ne f

r o m a ny t e sting, examinatio n, a nd analysis o f the Sep tember 201 1 meter lid and w o u ld c reate insu f f ic ient and mislead ing f ac ts f o r the ju r y . A n y j u ry v erd ic t wo u ld be based o n c o nj ec tu re a nd gu essw o rk

.
The trial c o u rt f

u rther fo u nd that Perk ins w as p rej u d ic ed by the lo ss o f the City insp ec to rs’ p ho t o grap hs bec au se Perk ins c o u ld hav e fo u nd d ef ec t s in t he lid based o n
tho se p ho to grap hs and the insp e c to rs’ rep o rts d o no t giv e f u ll, d etailed su mmaries o f the insp e c tio ns.
The trial c o u r t imp lemented the f o llo w ing sanc tio ns: [(i) t]he Ci ty w i l l be p rec lu d ed f ro m c a lling any w itnesses t o p resent testimo ny and /o r ev id enc e that the s mall lid was fine, had no p ro blems, f it sec u rely, and /o r w as able to be lo c ked in, or p resenting any ev id enc e that w o u ld tend to ref

u te the theo r y that it was negligent in 1 ) maintaining the meter lid and bo x and 2) saf ely and sec u rely c ov ering the

10w ater meter bo x in qu estio n. The City, ho w ev e r, w ill be allo w ed to

d ef end o n the issu es o f c o mp arativ e f au lt, c au satio n, and d amages. . . . [(ii) t]he j u ry w ill be instru c ted that the small w ater meter lid c o v ered the
meter bo x o n Sep tember 3, 201 1

. The j ury w ill also be instru c t e d that the

w ater m e ter lid d id no t f

it p ro p erly o n the meter bo x, a nd w hen Plaintif f step p ed o n t he lid , it f

lip p ed , c au sed him t o f

a ll, and a lleged ly resu lted in his inj u ries.

. . . [(iii)] s inc e the I nsp ec to rs’ p ho to grap hs are either lo st o r d e stro yed a nd Plaintif f’ s e f f e c tiv e c ro ss- examinatio n o f I nsp ec to r Sp enc er w o u ld be greatly hamp ered b y t he absenc e o f the p ho to grap hs t a k en by him, I nsp ec to r Sp e nc er is p rec lu d ed f r o m testif ying f o r any and all p u rp o s es.

The co urt also exc lu d ed intro d u c tio n into ev id enc e o f a lid similar to t he o ne Sp enc er
f ell o n in 201 4.
I n 2022, the C i t y f

iled a nu mber o f mo tio ns in limine, inc lu d ing mo tio ns to

exc lu d e ev id enc e o r argu ments regard ing: (i) o ther c iv il law s u its, claims, o r
ad ministrativ e p ro c eed ings against the City; (ii) o ther water meter c laim inj u ries that alleged ly o c c u rred bec au se o f ill- f ittin g w a t e r meter lid s; and (iii) o ther law su its against the City r elated t o alleged ly ill- f itting w a ter meter lid s. The City also so u ght

to exc lu de a ny ref

e renc e to t he f

ac ts and c irc u mstanc es su rro u nd ing the trial c o u rt’ s

11sp o liatio n ru ling. Fo llo w ing a hearing, the trial c o u rt granted in p art and denied in p art

the City’ s mo tio ns. While the c o u rt d etermined that no mentio n of s p o liatio n w as

w arranted , the c o u r t allo w ed Perk ins t o p resent ev id enc e that t here w ere

“ t ho usand [s] o f instanc e s that [the City] k new a bo ut” rega r d ing alleged p ro blems

w ith o t her w ater meter lid s to d emo nstrate c omp arativ e f au lt and sho w that the City
had no tic e and k no w led ge o f ill- f itting lid s.
A j u ry trial w as held in M arc h o f 2022. The f o llo w ing stip u latio n was r e a d t o the j u ry based o n the sp o liatio n and mo tio n in limine o rd ers:
The p arties hav e stip u lated that the small w ater meter lid , 1 8 by o neeighth inc hes lo ng by nine and sev en- eighth inc hes w id e, w as similar to the lid that w as o n the meter b o x w hen p laintif f was alleged l y inj u red

. The j u ry w ill b e instru c t ed t hat the small w a ter meter lid c o v ered the
meter bo x o n Sep tember 3rd , 201 1

. The j u ry is being instru c ted that the

w ater m e ter lid d id no t f

it p ro p erly o n t he meter bo x, and w hen p laintif f step p ed o n t he lid , it flip ped , c au sed him to fall, and alleged ly resu lted in the inj u r ies he’ s c laiming to d ay.

The City d id no t o bj ec t to the read ing o f this stip ulat i o n o r t h e t rial c o u rt’ s j u ry
instru c tio ns c o ntaining a similar stip u latio n.

12The j u ry retu rned a v erd ic t in Perk ins’ fav o r, aw ard ing $2,36 1 ,7 0 0 in d amages

f o r negligenc e and nu isanc e and $9 44,6 80 in atto rney f ees, and the trial c o urt issu ed

a final j u d gment based o n tho se amo u nts. The City su bsequ ently f iled a m o t i o n f

o r j u d gment no tw ithstand ing the verd ic t o r , alternativ ely, mo tio n f o r new t rial, argu ing,
in p a rt, that Perk ins w as no t entitled to atto rney f ees u nd er OCGA § 1 3- 6 -1 1

. The trial

c o u rt granted that p o rtio n o f the mo tio n, o v ertu rning the atto rney f ees aw ard ed
bec au se Perk ins d id no t plead s u c h f ees in his c o mp laint o r amend ed c o mp laint, bu t
d enied the remaind er o f

the mo tio n. 2 These ap peals f ollo w ed

. C a s e N o . A24 A0695

I n this a p p eal, the City argu es that the trial c o u rt abu sed its d isc r e t i o n in

c o nc lu d ing that Perk ins p ro v ed t h e C i ty l o s t o r d estro yed the lid and imp o sing a
d rac o nian s p o l i a t io n sanc tio n. The City f urther argu e s that the trial c o u rt erred in
ad mitting ev id e nc e at trial of alleged p r o blems regard ing o ther w ater meter lid s and

o ther w ater meters. W e f

ind no merit in either argu m ent.

1

. W e t u rn f

irst t o the City’ s argu ment regard ing the trial co u rt’ s f ind ing o f

sp o liatio n and its imp ositio n o f sanc tio ns. “ S p o l iatio n ref ers to the d estru c tio n o r

2 The co u rt f

urther f o u nd that atto rney fees w ere no t p ro p e r u nd er OCGA § 9

- 1 5- 1 4 bec au se the City’ s d ef enses c o ntained sev eral j u stic iable issu es o f law and d id
no t lac k su bstantial j ustif

ic atio n. Perk ins d o e s no t ap p eal this ru ling.

13f

ailu re to p rese r v e e v id enc e that is relev ant to co ntemp lated o r pend ing litigatio n.
S u c h c o nd uc t may c r eate the rebu ttable p resu mp tio n that the ev id enc e w o u ld ha v e
been harmf

u l to the sp o lia t o r . ” ( Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Un i ted Pa rcel S v c.

o f Ameri ca v. W hi tlo ck , 36 6 Ga. A p p . 542, 554 (2) (a) (883 SE2d 556 ) (2023). To p ro v e
that sp oliatio n has o cc u rred , the mo v ing p arty m u st establish that the ev id enc e in

qu estio n w as “k ey” o r “ nec essary” to the litigatio n. Bri dges to n e / F i r e s to ne N o rth
Ameri ca n Ti re v . Ca mpb ell , 258 Ga. A p p . 7 6 7, 7 6 8 (57 4 SE2d 923) (2002). The mo v ing

p arty mu st also d emo ns t r at e t h a t the no n- mo v ing p arty had c o ntro l o f the ev id enc e
and w as u nd er a d u ty to p reserv e the ev id e nc e at i s su e . Phi lli ps v . Ha rmo n , 29 7 Ga.

386 , 39 4, 39 6 (I I ) (7 7 4 SE2d 59 6 ) (201 5). The d u ty to preserv e relev ant ev id enc e

a r i s e s wh e n l i t i gatio n bec o mes “ reaso nably f o reseeable” to the n o n m o v i n g p a r t y , s u ch

as w hen a plaint i f

f p ro v id e s no tic e o f a c laim. I d. at 39 6

- 39 7 (I I ). “ A trial c o u rt has

w id e d isc retio n in ad j u d ic ating sp o liatio n issu es, and su c h d isc retio n w ill n o t be
d istu rbed absent abu se. ” (Citatio n and pu nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) W hi t lo c k , 36 6 Ga. A p p .
at 554 (2) (a); see also AMLI Res i den ti a l Pro perti e s v . Ga

. Po wer Co

. , 29 3 Ga. Ap p . 358 ( 6 6 7 S E2d 1 50) ( 2008) (no ting that this Co urt “ w ill no t d istu rb a trial c o u r t ’ s

14imp o sitio n o f sanc tio ns f o r e v i d e n ce s p o l i a t i o n u n l e s s t he c o u rt abu sed its d isc retio n” ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).

H ere, the City d o es no t assert that the w ater meter lid o n w hic h Perk ins f ell o n Sep tember 3, 201 1 w a s no t relev ant, k ey, o r nec essary to the litigatio n. I n d e e d , it is

c ritic al to the litigatio n w hic h alleges that the lid d id no t fit p ro p erly a nd this imp ro p er
f it c au sed Perk ins’ inj u ries. I n ad d itio n, the City do es no t argu e that t he w ater meter
and lid w ere no t in its c o ntro l. I nd eed , it is und isp u ted t hat the w a ter meter and lid at

1 81 4 D o d so n D riv e w ere a p art o f t he City’ s w ater system. M o reo v er, the City d o es

no t argu e that litigatio n w as no t reaso nably f o r eseeable at the time the relev ant lid w as
lo st o r d estro yed

. I n f

ac t, the rec o rd sho w s that immed iately f o llo w ing his ac c id ent,
Perk ins sp ok e w ith a City c laims inv estigato r abo u t t he inc id ent, and six d ays later
Perk ins su bmitted a c laim regard ing the inc id ent. H e w as then v ery p ersistent abo u t
his c laim, c a lling nearly ev ery o ther d ay. Clearly, the City had no tic e t hat litigatio n w as

reaso nably f

o reseeable at t hat p o int and had a d u ty to p r eserv e re l e v a n t ev id enc e,
inc lu d ing the w ater m eter lid in p lac e at the time o f Perk ins’ f al l , y e t i t f

ailed to

p reserv e the lid at that time. See C o o per T i re & Ru b b er C

o . v . Ko ch , 303 G a. 336 , 341

-

15342 ( 2) (c ) (81 2 SE2d 256 ) (201 8) (c o nc lu d ing that a p arty’ s d u ty to p reserv e relev ant

ev id enc e in its c o ntro l arises w hen that p arty ac tu ally a ntic ip ates o r reaso nably sho u ld
antic ip ate litigat i o n )

. I nstead , the City inexp lic ably argu es — d esp ite a wealth o f

ev id enc e to the c o ntrary — that it d id no t lo s e o r destro y the relev ant w a t er m eter lid

. This argu ment lac k s merit. (a) The City f

irst a sserts that the trial c o u rt f ailed to v iew the ev i d e n c e in the light mo st f

av o rable to it, as the no nmo v ing p arty, in d ec id ing that t he C i t y lo s t o r
d estro yed the lid p resent d u ring Perk ins’ ac c id ent. W e f ind no erro r in the s tand ard

o f rev iew u sed by the trial co u rt o r the c ou rt’ s d ec isio n u sing that stand a rd of rev iew

. I n its r ep ly brief

, t he City c ites to a rec ent o p inio n d isc u ssing the a p p l i c ab l e
stand ard o f rev iew w hen a trial c o u r t c onsid ers a s p o liatio n mo tio n w itho u t ho ld ing

an ev id e ntiary hearing: Go lden Pa ntry Fo o d S to res v. Bra dley , 37 1 G a. A p p . 37 4 ( 89 9
SE2d 7 24) (2024). I n that c ase, w e reiterated that, w hen d ec id ing a p re- trial mo tio n
f o r sp o liatio n sanc tio ns w itho u t an ev id entiary hearing to d etermine t he c red ibility o f

w itnesses, a trial c o u rt mu s t rev iew the m o t io n u nd er the stand ard a p p lic able to a

mo tio n f o r su mmary ju d gment: The p arty o p p o sing the mo tio n is e ntitled to hav e the

ev id enc e in t he rec o rd v iew ed in the ligh t m o s t f a v orable to it and t o hav e all

16reaso nable inf erenc es f ro m the ev id enc e d raw n in its fav o r . I d

. at 37 5. W e v a c ated the
trial c o u rt’ s ord ers granting t he mo tio ns fo r sp o liatio n af ter no ting that “t h e trial c o urt
d [id ] no t state the s tand a rd o f rev iew it emp lo yed ” a nd f ind ing that the c o u rt f

ailed

to emp lo y the p ro p er stand ard o f rev iew

. I d

. at 37 5- 37 6.
I n this c a se, the trial co u r t exp ressly stated the stand ard o f rev iew it ap p lied in its extremely tho ro u gh, 37

- p age o rd er o n the sp o liatio n mo tio n:
The relev a nt f

ac ts here mu st be v iew ed f av o rably to the City, as the p arty

o p p o sing the sp o liatio n mo tio n. W here, as here, a p arty f iles a p re- trial

mo tio n fo r sp o liatio n sanc tio ns and t h e t r i al c o urt c o nsid ers matters

o u tsid e o f the plead ings, bu t do es n o t ho ld an ev id entiary hearing, the

mo tio n is pro p erly rev iew ed u nd er the stand ard ap p lic able t o a m o t io n f o r su mmary j u d gment, and a s the p arty op p o sin g t he mo tio n, the

no n- mo v ant is entitled to hav e the ev id enc e in the rec o r d v iew ed in the light mo st f

av o rable to it and to hav e all reaso nable inf e r enc es f ro m the

ev id enc e d raw n in its f

av o r. The Co u rt has ap p lied this stand ard to the f ac ts o f this c ase[. ] (Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. )

A s stated abo v e, this is the ap p ro p ri a t e stand ard o f rev iew w hen the trial c o urt

c o nsid ers a sp o liatio n m o t i o n w itho u t ho ld ing an ev id entiary hearing. A ltho u gh the

p arties in this c ase d isp u te w hether the trial c o u rt held an ev id e ntiary hearing o n the

17sp o liatio n mo tio n, 3 w e f ind that, p retermitting w hethe r a n e v i d entiary hearing w as
held , the City’ s argu ments f ail ev e n u sing the mo re lenient su mmary j u d g m e nt
stand ard o f

rev iew artic u lated by the trial c o u rt. 4

Tu rning to the trial c o u rt’ s ap p lic atio n o f the su m mary j u d gment stand ard , the City argu es o n a pp ea l t h a t t he c o u rt mad e erro neo u s f ind ings and “ simp ly igno red

ev id enc e sho w ing the lid lik ely remained the same. ” I t fu r th e r argu es that the

ev id enc e, w hen v iew ed in the light mo st f av o rable t o t he City, “ d emo nstrates the City
d id no t lo se o r d estro y t he lid ” bec au se the e v id enc e inf ers t h a t n o City emp lo yee

c hanged t he w a t e r m e t er lid at issu e a nd the lid Sp enc er rec o v ered in 201 4 w as the

same smaller- siz ed l i d p r e sent w hen Perk ins a lleged ly inj ured himself in 201 1

. We
d isagree w ith the City’ s argu ments f o r a nu mber o f

reaso ns. First, altho u gh the City argu es that t he lid Sp enc er remo v ed in 2 0 1 4 l i k e ly
remained the s ame as the o ne o n the w ater meter at the time o f Perk ins’ f

all in 201 1 ,

3 Citing the trial c o urt’ s o rd er — whic h ind ic ated it c o nsid ere d ar g u m e n ts o f
c o u nsel and the c ase rec o rd — t he City c laims the trial co u rt granted Perk ins’ mo tio n “wi t h o u t h o l d i n g a n e v i d e n tiary hearing. ” Perk ins, on the other hand , asserts, w itho u t p ro v id ing any relev ant rec o rd or transc rip t c itatio ns, that the t rial c o urt held at least tw o hearings on the mo tio n and rec eiv ed ev id enc e (inc lu d ing pho to grap hs) d u ring the hearings.

4 I f an ev id entiary hearing had been held , w here the t r ial c o u rt c o u ld ad j u d ge the
c red ibility o f the w itnesses, this Co u rt w o u ld ap p l y the mo re stringent abu se o f d isc r etio n stand ard . See, e. g. , Ko ch , 303 Ga. at 343- 344 (3).

18the City’ s o w n ad m issio ns c ou nter this argu ment. The City ad mitted that it c o u ld no t

“ co nc lu siv ely say w hic h o f

. . . tw o lid s w as in p lac e” at the time o f Perk ins’ ac c id ent.
See Vers i c o , In c . v. E n gi n eered Fa b ri

cs C o rp. , 238 G a. A p p . 837 , 839 (1 ) (520 SE2d 505) (1 9 9 9 ) (f ind ing t hat p arty mad e ad missio ns in its c o u rt plead ings that c o u ld no t be

c o ntrad ic ted by o ther ev id e nc e u nless the ad missio ns w ere w ithd r a w n o r amend ed o n
f o rmal mo tio n). I n f

ac t, the City sp ec if

ic ally c o nc e d e d that it co u ld n o t t a k e the

p o sitio n that the lid Sp e n c e r r e m o v ed w as t he o riginal lid o n the w ater meter w hen
Perk ins f e ll.
Sec o nd , t he rec o rd i s u nd isp u ted that the City did no t send s o m eo ne to
inv e stigate the w ater meter lid at issu e u ntil nearly tw o mo nths af ter Perk ins f

iled his

c laim, and that inv estigato r tho u ght he w a s lo o k ing f o r a missing w ater meter lid

. The
inv e stigato r d id no t p reserv e the w ater meter lid at that time. N either d id he lif t the
lid o f f the w ater meter b o x d uring his inv estigatio n. A ltho u gh the inv estigato r d ep o sed
that the l i d f

it sec u rely, he c ou ld no t rec all the siz e o f the lid p resent d u ring his
inv e stigatio n. T h e City c laimed that the lid on the water m eter “remained the
Smaller- Siz ed L id [,]” bu t it a lso ad mitted t hat the “ Smaller- Siz ed L id lef t a gap ,” and

W ebb sp e c if

ic ally testif

ied that the lid f

it sec u rely w hen he insp ec ted it. W ebb f u rther

19d e p o sed that the lid p ho to grap hed o n the w ater m eter bo x t w o mo nths af te r h i s
i nv e stigatio n w as no t the same lid he o bserv ed o n the meter bo x, lead ing him t o

su rmise that it w as “ mo re p r o bable” that so meo ne sw itc hed the lid o n t h e w ater

meter b o x af

ter his insp ec tio n. A nd City agents testif ied that rep lac ed w ater m eter lid s

w ere no t a lw ays d o c u m e n t e d b y e m p l o yees. I n ad ditio n, years later Sp enc er v isited the
site a nd r e mo v ed the lid that w as p r esent at that time. I n so d o ing, he d isc o v ered “ lo ts

o f d ebris” a nd “ a p iec e o f [ a bro k en w ater meter] lid ” insid e the w a t e r m e t e r bo x. 5

Ev en c o nstru ing all o f t h e ev id enc e in the light mo st f av o rable to the City, this

ev id enc e su bmitted by the City’ s emp lo yees and agents c o u nters its argu ment that the
lid lik ely remained the same.

I t is u nd isp u ted that the City to ok no step s to ensu re that the o r i g i n al w ater

meter lid w as p reserv ed , d esp ite k no w ing that the lid w as a c ritic al p iec e o f ev id enc e
in a matter w here litigatio n w as f o reseeable w ithin d ays o f the in c i d e n t , p lac ing the City und er a d u ty t o p reserv e the relev ant ev id e nc e. See Ko ch , 303 G a. at 336

. I n f ac t, by its o w n ad missio ns the City d id no t r e m o v e the w ater meter lid a t 1 81 4 D o d s o n
D riv e u ntil years af

ter Perk ins’ f

all, and the City bo th ref u sed to c o nc ed e that the

5 N either p arty has c ited to any ev id enc e ind ic a ting w hether the b ro k en p iec e d isc ov ered insid e the water meter w as fro m a smaller o r lar g e r l id o r ho w lo ng the bro k en p iec e had been insid e the w ater meter.

20w ater meter lid remo v ed by Sp enc er in 201 4 w as the lid o n t h e meter at the time o f

Perk ins’ f all and , at the same time, argu ed that it sho u ld rec eiv e an inf erenc e that the
lid remo v ed by Sp enc er lik e ly remained the s a m e as t he o ne at the time of Perk ins’
f all. The co mp e ting theo ries p resented b y the City highlight the f ac t that the City

—

as it c onc ed ed — d id no t d ef initiv e l y p o ssess the ac tu al lid t hat alleged ly c au sed

P er k i n s ’ inj u ries, ev id enc e w hic h the City w as o bligated to p reserv e o nc e litigati o n

w as reaso nably f

o reseeable. See Ko ch , 303 Ga. at 336

. I n ad d itio n, the City d o es no t ad d ress in its ap p ellate b rief s the t r i a l c o u rt’ s
f ind ing that the lid Sp enc er remo v ed in 201 4 “ w o u ld no t hav e any p ro bativ e v alu e[. ]”

I n light o f testimo ny that City emp lo yees so metimes remo v e and rep lac e lid s w itho u t
mak ing an ac c u rate rec o rd o f su c h ev ents, it w a s inc u mbent u p o n the City to p reserv e
the lid at issu e in t his c ase, at least thro u gh p ho to grap hs, as so o n as p o ssible bef o re

su c h v it a l e v i d en c e w as lo st f o rev er, yet the City f

ailed to timely p reserv e the w ater

meter lid o r t he p ho to grap hs o f the lid tak en by its inv estigato rs. Ev id enc e su p p o rts
the trial c o u rt’ s f

ind ing that “ [t]he systematic p ro b lems exhibited in t his c ase by [the City] in trac k ing and saf

e gu ard ing o f ev id e nc e p rec lu d ed the ad equ ate p reserv atio n

o f this ev id enc e d esp ite early and f r equ e nt no tic e that litigatio n w o uld lik e ly ensu e. ”

2 1Regard less o f the City’ s argu ments and the ev id enc e in the rec o r d su rro u nd ing

the a u thentic ity o f the lid Sp enc er remo v ed in 201 4, it is u nd isp u ted that the City w as

u nable to p ro d u c e the w ater meter lid Sp enc er re m o v e d o r p ro d u c e p ho to grap hs Sp enc er and W ebb to o k o f the w ater meter lid d uring their inv estigatio ns. I n f ac t, o ne

o f the City’ s 30 (b) ( 6 ) w i tnesses sp ec if ic ally dep osed o n J u ne 6 , 201 9 that the City

c o u ld no t lo c ate the lid Sp enc er remo v ed

. I t theref o re strains c red u lity that the City

argu es in this c ase that it d id no t lo se o r d estro y the lid

. V i e w ing the ev id enc e in the light mo st f av orable to the City, w e f ind that t h e
trial c o u rt d id no t abu se its disc retio n in f ind ing that t he w ater meter lid and the

p ho to grap hs w ere lo st o r d estro yed by the City at a time w hen the City w as und er an

o bligatio n to p reserv e t h o s e i t ems. The trial co u rt d id no t mak e c red ibility
d eterminatio ns, c omp are Go l den Pa n t ry , 37 1 Ga. A p p . at 37 8, bu t, r ather, p ro p erly

u sed ad missio ns a nd testimo ny by the City’ s agents in d e t e rmining that sp o liatio n

o c c u r red

. See g enerally AMLI , 29 3 Ga. A p p . at 36 4 (1 ) (b) (“ Ultimately, it is the

ac tio ns o f A M LI and its agents that e stablish the fac tu al basis f or the trial c o u rt’ s
f ind ings o f p rej ud ic e and inability to c ure. ” ). The City’ s a rgu ment regard ing the
stand ard o f

rev iew u sed by the trial c o u rt lac k s merit.

22(b) The City next argu es that th e t rial co u rt abu sed its disc retio n in imp o sing

se v ere sp o liatio n sanc tio ns. I t f u rther asserts that these sanc tio ns w ere inc o nsistent

w ith the c o u rt’ s f

ind ings. W e d isagree.

W here a p arty has d estro yed o r signif ic antly altered ev id enc e that is material to the litigatio n, the trial c ou rt has w id e d isc r e tio n to f ashio n
sanc tio ns o n a c ase- by- c ase basis. Fo r exa m p l e, the trial c o urt m ay remed y the p rej u d ic e by c harging the j u ry that sp oliatio n of ev i d enc e
c reates t he rebu ttable p r esu mp tio n that the ev id enc e w o u ld hav e been harmf u l to the s p o liato r. The trial c o u rt may also be a u th o riz ed to d ismiss the case o r t o p rev ent that p arty’ s exp ert w itnesses f ro m testif ying in a n y r e sp ec t abo u t the ev id e nc e. W hether remed ies a re
w arranted is a matter f

or the trial c o u rt to d ec id e.
(Citatio ns and pu nc tu atio n omitted

. ) AMLI , 29 3 Ga. A p p . at 36 1 (1 ). “ This is no t an
exhau stiv e list o f sanc tio ns a t rial c o u rt may i m p o se; r ather, the trial c ou rt has w id e
latitu de to f

ashio n sanc tio ns o n a c ase- by- c ase basis, c o nsid ering w hat is ap p ro p riate
and fair u nd er the circ umstanc es. ” (Citati on and p u nc tu atio n o m itted

. ) C o wa n
S ys tems v . C

o lli er , 36 1 Ga. A p p . 823, 825- 826 (86 5 SE2d 6 19 ) (2021 ). That said , sev ere

sanc tio ns, “su ch a s an instru c tio n to the j u ry to p resu me rebu ttably that the ev id enc e

w as ad v erse to the sp o liating p arty’ s c laim o r d ef ense, t he entry o f a def

au lt j u d gment,

o r the dismissal o f the c a se,” are generally reserv ed fo r c a ses in w hi c h a p arty “ lo st

23o r d e stro yed mat e rial ev id enc e intentio nally in bad f aith and thereby p rej u d ic ed the

o p p o sing p a r t

y in an u nc u rable w ay. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Id

. at 826

. I n exerc ising its d isc retio n to d etermine the ap p ro priate p enalty f or sp o liatio n,
the trial c o u rt mu st w eigh f iv e f ac to rs: (1 ) w hether the p arty seek ing sanc t io ns w a s prej u d ic ed as a r esu lt o f the [lo ss o r] d estru c t io n of the ev id enc e; (2) w hether the p rej u d ic e c o u ld be

c u r ed ; ( 3 ) t h e prac tic a l imp o rtanc e o f the e vid enc e; (4) w hether the p arty w ho [lo s t o r] d estro yed the e v id enc e ac ted in go o d o r bad f aith; a nd (5) the p o te n t i a l f

o r abu se if exp ert t e stimo ny a bo u t the [lo st o r d estro yed ] ev id enc e w as no t exc lu d ed

. (Citatio n and p u n c t u atio n o m itted

. ) AMLI , 29 3 G a. A pp . at 36 1 (1 ). “ Giv en the

ev id enc e p resented , the trial c o urt w o u ld hav e been au t ho riz ed to d ismiss [the City’ s

answ er][. ]” Ca mpb ell , 258 Ga. A p p . at 7 7 1

. The trial co u rt, ho w ev er, d ec lined to d o

so , limiting the sp o liatio n sanc tio ns to the f o llo w ing: [(i) t]he City w ill be p rec lu ded f ro m c a l l i n g any w itnesses t o p resent testimo ny and /o r ev id enc e that the small lid w as f ine, had no p ro blems, f it sec u rely, and /o r w as able to be lo c k ed in, or p resenting any ev id enc e that w o u ld tend to ref

u te the theo r y that it w as negligent in 1 ) maintaining the meter lid and bo x and 2) saf ely and sec u rely c ov ering the

w ater meter bo x in qu estio n. The City, ho wev er, w ill be allo wed to d ef end o n the issu es o f c o mp arativ e f au lt, c au satio n, and d amages. . . .

24[(ii) t]he j u ry w ill be instru c ted that the small w a ter meter lid c o v ered the

meter bo x o n Sep tember 3, 201 1

. The j ury w ill also be instru c t e d that the

w ater m e ter lid d id no t f

it p ro p erly o n the meter bo x, a nd w hen Plaintif f step p ed o n the lid , it f

lip p ed , c au sed him t o f

a ll, and a lleged ly resu lted in his inj u ries.

. . . [(iii)] s inc e the I nsp ec to rs’ p ho to grap hs are either lo st o r d e stro yed a nd Plaintif f’ s e f f ec ti v e c ro ss- examinatio n o f I nsp ec to r Sp enc er w o u ld be greatly hamp ered b y the absenc e o f the p ho to grap hs t a k en by him, I nsp ec to r Sp e nc er is p rec lu d ed f r o m testif ying f o r any and all p u rp o s es.

The c o u rt also exc lu d e d intro d uc tio n into ev id enc e o f a lid similar to the o ne remo v ed by Sp enc er. W e c o nc lu d e t hat the trial c o u rt exerc ised its d isc r etio n to c raf t a v iable

sp o liatio n remed y, w hic h w e w ill no t d istu r b o n ap p eal. (i) Tu rning to the f

i r st f ac to r — w hether the p arty seek ing sanc tio ns w as
p rej u dic ed as a resu lt o f the lo ss o r d estru c tio n o f the ev id e nc e — w e agree w ith the
trial c o u rt that Perk ins w as p rej u d ic ed b o th by the City’ s inability to p ro d u c e the w ater
meter lid d e f

initiv ely p resent d uring his f all in 201 1, as well as b y the City’ s inability

to p r o d u c e the p ho to grap hs W ebb and Sp enc er to ok o f the w ater meter lid d u ring
their inv estigat i o n s . T h e City c laims t hat Perk ins is no t p rej u d ic ed bec au se: (a) his

exp ert c o u ld test the lid in the City’ s p o s s e ssio n; and ( b) the lid w o u ld obv iate the

25inad v ertent lo ss o f p ho to grap hs to establish any d ef ec ts in the meter lid

. H ow ev e r , it
is u nd isp u ted that W ebb d id no t s e c u r e t he lid w hen he inv e s tigated the sc ene tw o

mo nths a f

ter Perk ins’ fall. M o reo v er, the City d o es no t ad d ress the tr i a l c o u rt’ s
f ind ing that the lid Sp enc er remo v ed years af t er Perk ins’ f

all lac k s pro bativ e v alu e. I n

a d d i t i o n , e v en if the lid remo v ed in 201 4 had p ro bativ e v alu e, the City a d mitted it

c o u ld no t p ro d u c e t he lid Sp enc er r emo v e d in 201 4, and e v en if it co u ld pro d u c e the
lid , the City ref

u sed to c o nc ed e that the lid remo v ed by Sp e nc er was the same lid in

p lac e at the time o f

Perk ins’ f

all.

A s the trial c o u rt p o inted o u t , the City’ s f ai l u r e to p ro d u c e the ac t u al w ater

meter lid , d esp ite hav i n g a du ty to d o so f o llo w ing the c laim Perk ins f iled w ithin six
d ays o f the inc id e nt, p rev ented Perk ins f ro m e x am i n i ng w hether t here were any
d ef ec ts o r issu es w ith the ac t u al — as op p o s ed to a p resu mably similar — l i d

. We

agree. Perk ins’ theo ry o f c au satio n rested entirely o n the w ater m eter lid that w as o n
the w ater meter at the time o f his f all o n Sep tember 3, 201 1. A lid that may b e t he same
siz e as the o ne in p lac e at the time o f Perk ins’ f all w o u ld no t hav e been su bj ec t to the

same w eathering c ond itio ns, d ebris ac c u mu latio n, and f oo t traf f ic as the lid in p lac e

o n Sep tember 3, 201 1 , so the lid s lik ely w o u l d h a v e d if f erent w eight- b earing and

26f

lip p ing t end enc ies, c au sing a j u ry to sp ec u late a bo ut the lid ’s state, c o nd itio n, f it, and tip p ing p r o p e n s i t ies. The ev id enc e, ev en v iew ed in the light mo st f av o rable to the City, su p p o rted the trial c o u rt’ s d eterminatio n that Perk ins w as prej u d ic ed by the f a ct that testing c o u ld no t be d o ne o n the ac tu al w ater meter lid

. Lik ew ise, the City’ s inability to p ro d u c e W ebb’ s lo s t p ho t ograp hs prec lu d ed
Perk ins f ro m disc o v ering and p o ssibly establishing t he siz e, c o nd itio n, f it, a nd state o f
the w ater meter lid in p l a c e i n No v ember 201 1 , w hic h c o u ld hav e s erv ed as a u sef u l

to ol bo th to ref

resh W e bb’ s memo ry abo u t the lid he insp ec ted and to c hallenge the

v alid ity o f hi s f

ind ing that the lid w as sec u re t wo m o nths af ter Perk ins’ f

all. I n
ad d itio n, the City’ s inability to p ro d u c e t h e p ho to grap hs Sp enc er t o o k , ev en if
relev ant and p ro b a tiv e, hamp ered any ef f ec tiv e c ro ss- examinatio n o f that w itness.

“ U nd er these c irc u mstanc es, an examinatio n o f the ac tu a l [w ater meter lid o r
p ho to grap hs tak e n by Webb an d S p e nc er] w o u ld hav e signif ic antly enhanc ed [ P er k i ns’ ] ability” to p ro v e his c laim that the w ater m eter lid gav e w ay w hen h e
step ped o n it and ref

u te the City’ s d ef

ense t hat the w ater meter lid p ro perly c o v ered
the w ater meter and d i d no t co nstitu te negligenc e o r a nu isanc e. C a mpb ell , 258 Ga.

27A p p . at 7 6 9

. Perk ins w as prej u d ic ed by the City’ s lo ss o r d estru c tio n o f the w ater

meter lid and p ho t o grap hs. (ii) W e next tu r n to w hether the p rej u d ic e co u ld be c u red

. H ere, no t o nly w as
the City u nable to p ro d u c e t h e a c t u a l w ater meter lid o r t he p u rp o rted ly similar lid Sp enc er remo v ed in 201 4, bu t it also w as unable t o p ro d u c e any o f th e p h o to grap hs
its inv estigato rs t o o k

. A ltho u gh the City c laims that Perk ins ha d a cce s s t o p ho to grap hs
tak e n b y his d au ghter, a f o rmer City emp lo yee d ep o sed that o ne ca n no t tell f ro m
p ic tu res if a lid fits c o rrec tly bec au se a p ic tu re c anno t sho w if the lid is p u shed

c o rrec t ly and o ne d o es no t k no w the setting at the time the p ic tu res were t ak en o r the

s k ill o f the p erso n w ho to o k the p ic tu res. Perk ins c o u ld hav e benef it t e d f r o m
p ho to grap hs tak en by a c tu al City inv estigato rs who k new wh a t to lo o k f o r, and the

p rej u dic e c o u ld no t be c ured by p ho t o grap hs tak en by Perk ins’ d au ghter. M o reo v er,
the e xistenc e o f pho to grap hs is no t a su bstitu te f o r the ac tu a l ev id enc e . See C a mpb ell , 258 Ga. A p p . at 7 6 9

. The City’ s failu re to preserv e the o riginal w ater meter lid a t a time w hen it w as

u nd er a du ty to d o so , o r to p reserv e W ebb’ s p ho to grap hs, f o rec lo sed Perk ins’ ability

to p erf o rm testing a nd ref

u te W ebb’ s testimo ny that the lid f it p ro perly w hen he

28examined it tw o mo nths af ter the in c i d e n t. A t best, Perk ins w o u ld hav e been lef t to

c o b b l e t o g e t h e r a ci r cu mstantial c ase to rebu t ev id enc e based o n W ebb’ s inv estigatio n.
See AMLI

, 29 3 Ga. A p p . at 36 2 (1 ) (a) (ii). The p rej u d ic e to Perk ins bec au se he w as

u nable to c o nd u ct testing o n the ac t ual w ater m eter lid or v iew W ebb’ s p ho to grap hs

o f the lid c o u ld no t be c u red . Lik e the trial c o urt, w e f ind it d if f ic u lt to

see ho w the lo ss o f the o riginal lid and pho to grap hs ta k e n b y W e bb o n N o v ember 7 , 201 1 , c an be c u red by the p ro du c t io n o f

. . . Sp e nc er’ s lid

o btained in A p ril 201 4, so me tw o and half (1⁄2) years af ter the inj u ry. T his is p artic ularly tru e sinc e it c anno t b e established t hat the

. . . Sp enc e r lid is the ac tu al lid that w as in p lac e d u ring the inc id ent in qu e stio n.
Regard less, the City c o nc ed ed it c o u ld n o t l o c ate and p ro d u c e the lid Sp enc er

remo v ed , so that is a mo o t p o int.
Lik ew ise, the City su gg e s t s t h a t p r e j u d i ce t o P e r k i n s c ou ld hav e been minimiz ed
thro u gh an ef

f ec t i v e c r o ss- examinatio n o f W ebb a nd Sp enc er w itho u t the lo st

p ho to grap hs or thro ugh the testing o f “ exemp lars o f

the Smaller- Siz ed Lid [. ]” The

ac tu al lid and the p ho to grap hs in this c a s e, ho w ev er , w o u ld hav e been c ru c ial to an

e f f ec tiv e c ro ss- examinatio n o r testing, and the City c o u ld no t pro du ce e i t h e r . T h e C i t y
also asserts that the intro d u c tio n o f p o tential ev id enc e of alleged p ro b lems w ith o ther

29meters and lid s co u ld hav e been su ff ic ient to c u re the lo ss o f the lid and p ho to grap hs
in t h i s c a s e . This is an interesting argu ment sinc e the City ap peals the trial c o u rt’ s
intro d u c tio n o f ev id enc e regard ing o ther meters and lid s at trial. See D iv isio n 2, inf ra. Regard less, e v id e nc e o f o ther issu es w ith w ater m eter lid s, w hile relev a nt, w o u ld no t

c u r e the City’ s lo ss o f

the ac tu al w ater meter lid Perk ins step p ed o n w hen he f ell.
The trial co u rt’ s f

i n d i n g t h at the p rej u d ic e to Perk ins c o uld no t b e c u red is

su p p o rted by the rec o rd , ev en w hen v iew ed in the light mo st f av o rable to Perk ins. ( i i i ) Similarly, the third f

ac to r — the p r ac tic al imp o rtanc e o f the ev id enc e
—

w as met sinc e t he o riginal water meter lid and /o r p ho to grap hs were c ritic al to the

u nd erlying c laim. I nd eed , the City d o es no t d isp u te this issu e. (iv ) The f ou r th f ac to r — w hether t he City ac ted in go o d o r bad f aith — is a bit

mo re tro u bling. A c c o rd ing to t he trial c ou rt, “ the sp o liatio n resu lting here e s sentially stem[med ] f

ro m a lac k o f an ef

f ec tiv e system o r p ro p er p ro to co ls regard ing the

p reserv atio n o f ev id enc e in w ater meter lid s and bo xes cases as s ho wn by the City in
this c a se. ” The c ou r t no t ed that “ [t]here w as v irtu ally no ef f o rt b y [the City] to

p reserv e the w ater m eter lid and bo x in a timely manner in this matter,

no tw ithstand ing the rec eip t o f t he A nte Litem no tic e[,]” a nd the City “ lo st no t o ne,

30bu t tw o sets of p ho to grap hs tak en by I nsp ec t ors d u ring their insp ec tio n o f the w ater

meter lid and bo x in qu estio n. ” N ev ertheless, the trial c o urt c o nc lu d ed that the City’ s
lo ss o f the ev id enc e w as no t “c au sed by any intentio nal o r malic io u s ac ts o f the City. ”
The City a rgu es t hat bec au se the lo ss o f t his ev id enc e w as c au sed by negligenc e
rather than a n y m a l i ci o u s i n t ent, the c o u rt s ho u ld hav e f ashio ned less sev ere sp o liatio n

sanc tio ns. We f

ind no abu se o f the trial co u rt’ s d isc retio n in f ashio ning the sp o liatio n

sanc tio ns it imp o sed

. A s this Co u rt rep eated ly has stated , “ [e]xc lu sio nary sanc tio ns may b e
ap p ro p riate w h ere the sp o liato r has no t ac ted in bad f a ith. ” A MLI , 29 3 Ga. A p p . at
36 3 (1 ) (a) (iii). I n f

ac t, a s ho wing o f malic e is no t alw ays requ ired ev en w hen imp o sing
the harsh sanc tio n o f d ismissal, see Ca mpb ell , 258 Ga. Ap p . at 7 7 0, and here the trial

c o u rt d id no t imp o s e the harshest s anc tio n o f d ismissal. To d etermine w hether

sanc tio ns f

or sp o liatio n are w a rranted , t he trial c o u rt mu st merely “ w eigh the d egree

o f the sp o liato r’ s c ulp ability a gainst the p r ej u d ic e to the o p p o sing party. ” I d

. A nd ,

c o ntrary t o the City’ s c ontentio ns o n ap p eal, ev en c o nstru ing the ev id e nc e in the light

mo st f av o rable to the City, there is ev id enc e o f the City’ s c u lp ability.

31A s stated p rev io usly, the Ci ty k n ew o f Perk ins’ c laim within d ays o f the

inc id ent, and Perk ins c a lled at least a f ew times eac h w eek to c hec k o n the statu s o f the
inv e stigatio n, bu t the City d id no t send an insp ec to r to the site fo r nearly tw o mo nths. This insp ec to r d id no t k no w abo u t Perk ins’ c laim, d id no t lif t the w ater meter lid to insp ec t the entire bo x, a nd d id no t r emo v e the lid to p reserv e it f o r f o r e s eeable litigatio n. Tw o and a half y e ars later, t he City sent ano ther in v estigato r t o the sc ene

w ho finally remo v ed the lid o n t he w ater meter and f o u nd a p iec e of bro ken lid insid e
the bo x, bu t the City c o u ld no t p ro d u c e that l i d b e c au se its whereabo u ts w ere

u nk no w n. On to p o f that, t he City lo st pho to grap hs tak en by bo t h inv estigato rs. The City’ s c u lp ability w as f

urther enhanc ed bec au s e it ref u sed t o ac k no w led ge that it lo st
the lid Sp enc er remo v ed in 201 4. I n A p ril 201 5, the City inf ormed Perk ins t hat it w as

“ willing to mak e the requ ested meter lid av a ilable to Plaintif f f or o n- site testing and insp ec tio n at a mu tu ally a greeable tim e, w hile D ef end ant’ s a tto rney and /o r
rep resentativ e [w as] p resent. ” H o w e v er, o n J u ne 6 , 2 0 1 9 , t h e City’ s 30 (b) ( 6 )

rep resentativ e ad mitted that t he City co u ld no t p ro d u c e the w ater meter lid Sp enc er

remo v ed

.

32I t is axio matic that a p a rty sho u ld o nly be p e naliz e d f o r lo sing o r d estro ying
relev ant ev id enc e if it w as wro ng to d o so . See Phi lli ps , 29 7 Ga. at 39 8- 39 9 (I I);
Jo hn s o n v . Ri

v erda l e An e s thes i a As s o cs . , 249 Ga. A p p. 1 52, 1 55 (2) (54 7 S E 2 d 3 47 ) (2001 ) , af f ’ d o n other gro u nd s in Jo hn so n v . Ri verda le An es t

hes i a As s ocs . , 27 5 Ga. 240 (56 3 SE2d 431 ) (2002). The City’ s f a i l u r e to p reserv e the o riginal w ater meter lid
immed iately af

ter Perk ins f

iled a c l a i m a nd litigatio n was f o r eseeable may no t hav e
been malic io u s , b u t it w as wro ng. M o reo v er, the City’ s lo ss o f tw o s ets o f p ho to grap hs
tak e n by inv estigato rs, as well as its misp lac ement o r lo ss o f t he lid Sp enc er remo v ed
in 201 4, may no t hav e been malic io u s, bu t it also w as w r o ng. T his p a t t e r n o f

c o nsistently w ro ng ac t io n s d e mo nstrated the City’ s c u lp ability and sev erely

p rej u dic ed Perk ins’ ability to p r o v e his c ase. W eighing the d egree o f t he City’ s

c u lp ability against t he p rej u d ic e to Perk ins, see C a mpb e ll , 258 Ga

. A p p . a t 7 7 0, w e

c o nc lu d e that the trial c o urt d id no t abu se its d isc r e tio n in d etermining that the City’ s

w ro ngf ul ac tio ns — in co nj u nc tio n w ith the o ther f ou r f ac to rs m ilitating “ so stro ngly
in f av or o f imp o s ing e xc lu sio nary sanc t i o n s ”

— s u p p o rted t he imp o sitio n o f harsh

sp o liatio n sanc tio ns d esp ite the c o u rt’ s f ind ing that the City d id no t ac t in bad f aith.

3 3See AMLI

, 29 3 Ga. A p p . at 36 3- 36 4 (1 ) (a) (iii); see also W a l- Ma rt S to res v . Lee , 29 0
Ga. A p p . 541 , 546 (1 ) (6 59 SE2d 9 05) (2008). (v ) Finally, w e t u r n t o the last f ac to r: w hether there w as a po tential f o r abu se
if exp ert testimo ny abo u t the lo st o r d e s tro yed ev id e nc e w as no t exc lu d ed

. “ The

sp o liatio n o f c ritic al ev id enc e — f o r w hatev er reaso n — may resu lt in trial by
ambu sh[, a]nd p ermitting p a rties to e ngage in s u c h a tac tic u nd ermines the integrity

o f the j u d ic ial p ro c ess. ” ( Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n omitted

. ) C ampb ell , 258 G a. A p p .
at 7 7 1

. H ere, the t rial c o urt f o u nd that exp ert testimo ny regard ing the 201 4 lid Sp enc er

remo v ed sho u ld be e xc lu d ed bec au s e the City ref u sed to c o nc ed e t hat the lid w as the

same a s the o ne in p lac e o n Sep tember 3, 201 1 , and ev id enc e in the rec ord su ggested
that it w as no t the same lid

. In fac t, the p arties agreed that the ac tu a l lid c o u ld no t be
id entif ied

. A s the t rial c o u rt stated , “ [w ] itho ut the benef it of e xamining the ac tu al lid ,
exp erts w o u ld be relegated to relying o n mere co nj ec tu r e and gu e ssw o rk regard ing the
siz e, co nd itio n, and f

it o f the m e ter lid ” at the time o f Perk ins’ f all. The City d o es no t

c hallenge the trial c o urt’ s f ind ings as to the p o tential f o r abu s e. (v i) A c c o rd ing to the City, a rebu ttable p r esu mp tio n that the lid p resent at the
time o f the ac c id ent w as the smaller- siz ed lid wo u ld hav e been ap p ro p riate u nd er the

34c irc umstanc es o f this c ase. The trial c o u r t, ho w ev er, c o nsid ered this lesser sanc tio n

a n d c o nc lu d ed that a r ebu ttable p resu m p tio n w as “ no t an o p tio n bec au se the o n l y

ev id enc e that the City ha[d ] av ailable to rebu t the presu mp tio n w o u ld b e based o n
sp ec u latio n and c o nj ec tu re. ” Co mp are C o wa n Sys tems , 36 1 G a . A p p . a t 827 -828 (“ No t hing in the c o u rt’ s o rd e r sho w s that it c o nsid ered a lesser sanc tio n and f o u nd
it insu ff ic ient und er these f

ac ts. ” ). The c o u rt also c o nc lu d ed that d ismissal w as no t

an ap p ro p riate o p tio n bec au se the City e xhibited negligenc e and no t bad f aith.

H o w ev e r, bec au se t h e C ity w ro ngf u lly f ailed t o p reserv e c ritic al ev id enc e u nd er its

c o nt r o l w h e n it had a du ty to d o s o , and t he p rej u d ic e to Perk ins was inc u rable, the

c o u rt “ c raf

ted a v i a b l e r e m e d y ” that it f elt was “ap p ro p riate and f air” und er the

c irc umstanc es in this c a se.
A p p lying the nec essarily d ef erential stand a rd o f rev iew giv en the trial c o u rt’ s

“ wid e latitu d e to f

ashio n sanc tio ns o n a case- by- c ase b asis, c o nsid ering w hat is

ap p ro p riate a nd fair u nd er the c irc u m stanc e s[,]” s ee C o wa n S ys tems , 36 1 Ga. A p p . at

825- 826 (c itatio n a nd p u nc tu atio n omitted ), we find that the t r ial c ou rt d id no t abu se
its d isc retio n in fashio ning the sanc tio ns it imp o sed in this case. See R. A

. S i egel C o . v . Bo wen , 246 Ga. A p p . 1 7 7 , 1 82 (2) (539 SE 2 d 8 7 3) (2000) ( c o nc lu d ing that “ [t]he

3 5sp o liato r o f the ev id enc e sho uld no t benef it fro m its d estru ctio n” ). W e no te that the
trial c o u rt sp ec if

ic a lly permitted the City to d ef end o n t he issu es o f c o mp arativ e f au lt,

c au satio n, and d amages.

2. T he City asserts that the trial c o u rt erred in ad mittin g e v i d e n c e at trial o f alleged p ro blems regard ing o ther w a t e r m e t e r lid s and o ther w ater meters. “ A trial

c o u rt’ s d ec isio n regard ing the ad missio n o r exc lu sio n o f ev id enc e is rev iew ed f

o r an
abu se o f d isc r etio n. ” (Citatio n and pu nc tu atio n omitted

. ) Ko u les v . S P5 Atla nti c Retai l
Ven tu res , 330 Ga. A p p . 282, 285 (2) (7 6 7 SE2d 40) (201 4).
This is so bec au se trial c o u rts, u nlik e ap pellate c o u rts, are f a miliar with

a p iec e o f litigatio n fro m its inc e p tio n, hear first- hand the argu ments o f

c o u nsel, and c o nsid er d isp u ted ev id enc e within t he c ontext o f an entire p ro c eed ing. H enc e , it is o nly natu r a l t hat an ap p ellate c o u rt sho u ld d e f er t o t h e t rial c o u rt w ith regard to the ad missio n o f ev id e nc e, u nless the lo w er c o u rt’ s d ec isio n is so f law ed a s to c o nstitu t e an abu s e of d isc retio n.
(Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) S t o v a ll v . D a i

mlerC hrys ler Mo to rs C

o rp. , 27 0 Ga.

A p p . 7 9 1 , 79 1

- 7 92 (6 08 SE2d 245) (2004). We f ind n o a b u se o f the trial c o u rt’ s
d isc r etio n in this c ase.
Prio r t o trial, t he City f

iled 20 mo tio ns in limine, inc lu d ing a mo tio n to exc lu d e
any a nd all ev id e nc e o f o ther inj u ries and o ther water meter c laims o f inj u r ies against

36the City, and a m o t io n t o exc lu d e any and all e vid enc e o f o ther law su its against the

City. Perk ins argu ed that e v id e n c e o f o ther inj u ries and law su its w as relev ant to
f o reseeability, k no w led ge, t he amo u nt o f risk , the breac h of the stand ard o f c are, the
d e g r ee o f breac h, and c o mp arativ e f a u lt o f the City v is- a- vis Perk ins and K &V , t h e
installer o f the w ater meters. Sp ec if ic ally, Perk ins so u ght to intro d u c e claims o f o ther
ind iv id u als w ho step p ed o n w a ter meter lid s, w hic h t hen f lip p ed and inj u red them. H e
also so u ght to intro d u c e B u rns’ statements and ad missio ns that the City w as w ell

aw are that it had sev eral tho u sand ill- f itting w ater meter lid s that c reated haz ard ou s

meter c o nd itio ns in the c ity. Perk ins fu rther so u ght t o intro d u c e the City’ s resp o nses

to his requ ests f

o r ad missio ns, whic h listed similar c laims w here ind iv id u als step p ed

o n w ater meter lid s that d id no t stay in p lac e.
A t the mo tio n in limine hearing, the trial co u rt ru led that similar c laims c o u ld
be intro d u c ed into ev id enc e sinc e the City asserted t hat K &V w as p artly resp o nsible
and the j u ry w o u ld hav e to ap p o rtio n liability betw een the City and K &v

. H o w ev er,
the c o u rt ru led that similar c laims ev id enc e w o uld no t b e ad missible if the City c ho se

no t t o b r i ng u p K &V liability. The c o urt also r u led t hat Perk ins c o uld intro d u c e

3 7B urns’ testimo ny regard ing the City’ s k no w led ge. The trial c o u rt’ s su bse qu ent

w ritten o rd er stated as f

o llo w s:
The Co u rt will allo w Gw e nd o lyn B u r ns’ ad missio n as well as ad missio ns
o f D e fe n d a n t t h r o u g h i t s r e s p o n s es to Requ est fo r A d missio ns. H o w ev er , sinc e D ef end ant has elec ted no t to seek ap p o rtio nment as to K&V , the Co u rt w ill no t a llo w ev id e n c e o f o ther instanc es o f ill- f itting lid s in the City f lip p ing and c au s ing inj u ry to o thers.

The v erd ic t f

o r m d id no t list K &V o r ask the j u ry to ap p o r tio n f a u lt betw e e n the City
and K &v

. D u ring Perk ins’ o p ening statement, his atto rney d isc u ssed the City’ s
k no w led ge o f o ther ill- f

itting lid s thro u gho u t the c ity. Ad d itio nally, Perk ins c alled

sev eral w itnesses and qu estio ned them regard ing t he City ’ s k no w led ge o f other illf itting lid s thro u gho u t the c ity, and the City d id no t o bj ec t to these qu estio ns. Perk ins
also intro d uc e d a p o s tc ard sent to c u sto m ers ask ing t hem to rep o rt w ater meter lid

p ro blems and p ho ne lo gs o f cu s to m er rep o rts abo u t w ater m eter li d i ss u e s , w ith no

o bj ec tio n by the City.

38A f

ter the trial c o nc lu d ed , the City f iled a m otio n f

o r j u d gment no t withstand ing
the v erd ic t o r mo tio n f

o r new trial, a rgu ing, a m o ng o ther things, that “ the City w as

u n f a i rly p rej u d ic ed by the intro d u c tio n of ev id enc e relating to o ther ill- f itting w ater
meter lid s thro u gho u t the City. ” Sp e c if ic ally, the City maintained :
I f the City had k no w n that Plaintif f w as go ing to in t r o d u c e s u c h

ev id enc e , in d irec t c o ntrad ic tio n t o t he Co u rt’ s e x p r es s instru c tio ns d u ring the Mo t io ns in Limine hearing, it w o u ld nev er ha[v e] w ithd raw n its N o t ic e o f A p p o rtio nment against K &V

. The City relied , to its d etriment, o n this Co u rt’ s ru ling d u ring the M otio ns in Limine hearing, and a s su c h , w as irrep arably harmed and p rej u d ic e d d u ring trial w hen

su c h ev id e nc e w as ad mitted , o v er o bj ec tio n.

The City’ s argu m ent at the m o t io n f o r new trial hearing was s imilar: “ [T]he Co u rt’ s
allo w ing ev id enc e o f o ther ill- fitting w ater meter lid s thro u gho u t the c ity, w hen it said
in Febru ary 2022 at t he mo tio ns hearing that if w e w ithd rew that ap p o r t i o nment it

w o u ld no t, it w a s inc red ibly p rej u d ic ial, highly p rej u d ic ial, Yo u r H o no r. A nd as su c h,

w e m o v e t h e Co u rt f

o r a J N OV , o r a new trial w itho u t any mentio n o f the o ther illf itting w ater meter lid s thro ugho u t the c ity. ”
The trial c ou r t d enied the City’ s mo tio n w ith resp ec t to t h e a d missio n o f

ev id enc e o f o ther ill- f

itting w ater meter lid s t hro u gho u t the c ity, find i n g t h at “ su c h

39ev id enc e [w as highly] relev ant t o sho w that [t]he City had su p erio r k no w led ge o f the

haz ard enc o untered by the p laintif f

. ” (Citatio n a nd p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) The c o urt
also f o u nd su c h ev id e nc e relev ant to s ho w no tic e t o t he City f or Perk ins’ nu isanc e

c laim.
On ap p eal, t he City m ai n t ains f o r the f irst time that the trial co u rt abu sed its
d i s c r e t i o n in allo w ing into e v id enc e alleged issu es w ith o ther w ater meters and li d s
bec au se Perk ins f

ailed to d e m o nstrate that the other w ater meters and /o r lid s w ere

su bstantially similar to t he alleged meter and lid at issu e i n t h is c ase. I mp o rtantly,
ho w ev er, the City d id no t obj e c t o n this gro u nd to e ither the i n t r o d u c t io n o f the

ev id enc e o r argu ment regard ing the ev id e nc e d u ring trial. 6 I t is w ell settled t hat a c laim

o f erro r is w aiv ed witho u t a c ontemp o raneo u s o bj e c tio n. See W i l li a ms v . Ha rv ey , 31 1
Ga. 439 , 447 (1 ) (a) (858 SE2d 47 9) ( 2021 ) (“ [ A ] co nt e m p o r a n eo u s o bj ec t io n mu st
be mad e at the t i me an alleged v io latio n o f a ru led

- u p o n mo tio n in limine o c c u rs at
trial — w hether d u ring the p r esentatio n o f e v id enc e o r in o p enin g s t a t ements o r

6 The su bstantially similar argu ment w as d isc u s sed d u ring the mo tio n in limine, bu t the City d id no t lo d ge any sp e c i f i c o b j ec tio n o n this gro u nd to the trial c o u rt’ s mo tio n in limine ru lings, and , as stated a bo v e, the City did no t o bj ec t to c o u n s e l’ s argu ment o r the ad missio n o f this ev id e nc e o n this gro u nd at trial.

40argu ments mad e by c o u nsel bef o re the f ac tf ind er — in o r d er to preserv e the erro r f o r
ap p eal. ” )

. A ltho u gh a p arty d o es no t w a iv e an erro r by failing to o bj e c t to a d missio n
o f ev id enc e af

ter a mo tio n in limine is d enied , this ru le c a nno t be inv o k ed
to p reserv e a d if

f erent, if p e rhap s related , erro r. To allo w su c h a p ro c ed u re wo u ld d e p riv e the t r ial c o u rt o f the o p p ortu nity to c o nsid er the erro r alleged , and tak e c o rrec tiv e ac t io n, if nec essary.
(Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o m itted

. ) I d

. at 452 (2). A bsent an o bj e c tio n, we rev iew the

c hallenged ev id enc e o nly f o r p lain erro r, see Chrys l

er Gro u p v. W a lden , 303 Ga. 358,

36 9 (I I ) ( B ) (81 2 SE2d 244) (201 8), and the City neither asserts no r argu es that it met the p lain erro r stand ard o f rev iew

. I n ad d itio n, the City did no t raise this p artic u lar a rgu ment r eg a r d i n g

su bstanti a l l y s i m ilar inc id ents d u ring the hearing o n its mo tio n f o r new t r ial. I t is
axio matic that “ [a]n a rgu ment no t r aised in the t r ial c o u rt is w aiv ed a n d c a n n o t be
raised f o r the f irst time on ap p eal. ” L o cke’ s Gra p h i c & Vi n yl S ign s v . C

i ti co rp Ven do r
F i n a n c e , 285 G a. A p p . 826 , 828 (2) ( a) (6 48 SE2d 1 56 ) (2007 ); see also S mi th v . La ymo n , 27 9 Ga. 823, 824 (2) (6 20 SE2d 79 6 ) (2005) ( h o ld ing that “[i]ssu es nev er
raised at trial w ill no t be c o nsid e red f or the f irst time o n a p p eal” ) (c itatio n and

4 1p u nc tu atio n o mitted )

. B e c au se the City’ s enu meratio n o f erro r is p red ic ated o n legal

argu ments that w ere no t p resented to the t r ial c o u r t, i t has w aiv ed c onsid eratio n o f this gro u nd f

o r the f irst time o n ap p eal.

N o tw ithstand ing the City’ s w aiv e r o f this argu ment, w e c o nc lu d e that the

argu ment has no merit f

o r sev eral reaso ns. First o f all, the City misc harac teriz es the

ev id enc e ad mitted at trial a s o ther similar inc id ent e vid enc e. A ltho u gh “ [s]imilar ac ts

o r o missio ns o n o ther and d if f erent o c c asio ns a r e n o t generally ad missible t o p ro v e lik e

ac ts o r o missio ns at a d if

f erent t ime o r p lac e[,]

. . . the p urp o s e o f the [u no b j ec ted to ]
testimo ny in qu estio n w as no t t o p r o v e prio r inc id ents” that the w ater meter lid
Perk ins s tep p ed o n w a s d ef ec tiv e o r that Perk ins’ inj u ry w as c a u sed by a d ef ec t in the

w ater me t er lid ; rather, the ev id enc e w as intro d u c ed to sho w that the City “ had

rec eiv ed no tic e and had k no w led ge of ” a p ro blem w ith ill- f itting lid s thro u gho u t the

c ity. S ki l C o rp. v . Lu gs di n , 1 6 8 Ga. A p p . 7 5 4, 7 54- 755 (1 ) (309 SE2d 9 21 ) (1 9 83) (f ind ing ev id enc e that c o mp a ny had no tic e a nd general k no w led ge that i t s p ro d u c t had

a p ro blem relev a nt and ad missible to sho w kno w led ge o f a d angero us c o nd itio n o r
d ef ec t). I n fac t, the w itnesses “ d id no t testif y as to the p artic u lar f

ac ts, allegatio ns, o r

o u tc o mes o f any o f the ind iv id u al inc id e nts r ep o rted , bu t o nly a s to [the City’ s] rec eip t

42o f c o mp laints” hav ing to d o w ith ill- f itting City w ater meter lid s, w hic h w as relev ant
testimo ny. I d

. at 7 55 (1 )

. Sec o nd , the City sp ec if

ic ally asserts o n ap p eal that “ [t]he trial c o u rt a bu sed its
d isc r etio n in d enying in p art the City’ s mo tio n in l i m ine and allo w ing [ Perk ins] to
intro d u c e ev id e nc e o f p u rp o rted p ro blems w ith o ther w ater meters bec au se [Perk ins]
f ailed to d emo nstrate they w ere su bstantially similar to the a lleged meter a nd ac c id ent
at issu e. ” H o w ev e r, the City’ s mo tio ns in limine d id no t ad d ress general k no w led ge by the City o f w ater meter lid p ro blems. The mo tio ns s p ec if ic ally ref erenc ed “ o ther

c iv il law su its, claims, o r ad ministrativ e p r o c ee d i n g s against” the City, “ any and all

ev id enc e o f o ther inj u ries and o ther w ater meter claims o f inj u ries against the City,”
and “ a ny and a ll ev id enc e o f o ther law su its a gainst the City. ” The ev id enc e Perk ins
intro d u c ed at trial d id no t inv o lv e c laims, inj u ries, o r other law su its a gainst t he City,

w hic h w as the ev id enc e the City so u ght to exc lu d e; rath e r , it inv o lv ed the City’ s general k no w led ge t hat tho u sand s o f w ater meters had ill- f itting lid s. A c c o rd ingly, the City misc harac teriz es the a d missio n o f this ev id enc e as a d enial o f its mo tio n in limine. Finally, the City’ s k no w led ge r egard ing pro blems w ith ill- f itting lid s w as, as the
trial c ou rt stated , “ highly r elev ant” to d emo nstrate that the City had su p erio r

43k no w led ge o f the haz ard Perk ins enc o u ntered and to p ro ve c o mp arativ e fau lt. “ The

f u nd amental basis f

o r an o w ner o r o c c u p ier’ s liability in p remises- liability c ases is the

o w ner’ s su p erio r k no w led ge o f t he haz ard e nc o u ntere d b y t h e p l a i n t i ff. ” ( C i t a tio n and

p u n c t u at io n o mitted

. ) S i n ya rd v . Ga

. Po wer C

o . , 36 3 Ga. Ap p . 1 9 5, 205 (2) (a) (8 7 1
SE2d 45) (2022).

H ere, ev en if the City d id no t w aiv e its argu m ent, e v id enc e o f the City’ s general
k no w led ge regard ing ill- f

itting w ater meter lid s t hro ugho u t the city w as relev ant and
intro d u c ed f

o r a p ro p er p u rp o se . A c c ord ingly, the trial c o urt d id no t abu se its
d isc r etio n in allo w ing the intro d u c tio n o f this testimo ny.
C a s e N o . A24 A0696

3. I n a c ro ss- ap peal, Perk ins asserts that the t r ial c o u rt erred in granting a j u d gment no tw ithstand ing the v erd ic t and o v e rtu rning the j u ry’ s aw ard o f OCGA §

1 3- 6 -1 1 a t t o rney f

e es to Perk ins. Perk ins d o es no t d isp u te that he f a iled to sp ec ially

p lead o r p ray a c laim f

o r atto rney f

ees, as requ ired by OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 1 1 , in either his

c o mp laint f

iled in 201 3 o r his amend ed c o mp laint f iled in 2020. He lik ew ise d o es no t
d isp u te that he c o u ld hav e amend ed his p lead ing w itho u t leav e o f c o u rt p rio r to entry

o f the p retrial ord er. See OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 15 (a) (“ A party may amend his p lead ing as a

44matter o f c ou rse and w itho u t leav e o f c o u rt at any time bef

ore the entry o f a p retrial

o rd er. ” ). I nstead , Perk ins argu e s that he su f f ic iently plead ed a c laim f

o r OCGA § 1 3-

6

- 1 1 atto rney fees f

o r t h e f irst time in the p r etrial o rd er, w hic h w a s s u bsequ ently signed by the trial c ou r t. Giv e n the c irc u mstanc es o f this c ase, w e d isagree.

“ Where, as here, a c as e tu rns o n statu t ory interp retatio n and reso lu tio n o f

qu estio ns o f law , we ap p ly a de no vo stand ard o f rev iew

. ” S to ckto n v . S

ha dwi ck , 36 2
Ga. A p p . 7 7 9 , 7 80 (87 0 SE2d 104) (2022). That said , t he relev ant statu t e at issu e here
is OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 1 1, w hic h p ro v id es as f o llo ws:
The exp enses o f litigatio n generally s hall no t be allo wed as a p art o f the d amages; b u t w h e re the p laintif f has sp ec ially p lead ed a nd has mad e p rayer theref

o r and w here the d ef

e nd a nt has ac ted in bad f

aith, has been
stu bbo rnly litigio u s, o r has c au sed the p laintif f u nnec essary tro u ble a nd exp ense, the j u ry may allo w them.

This Co u rt p rev io u sly has held that “[a]w ard s und er OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 1 1 mu st be

sp ec if ic ally p lead ed and p rayed f o r in the co mpla i

n t

. ” (Emp hasis su p p l ied .) D ept. o f

Tr a n s p

. v . G a . Telev i

si o n C o . , 244 Ga. A p p . 7 5 0, 751 (1 ) (536 SE2d 7 7 3) ( 2000); see
also W i lli a m s v . Bi ni o n , 227 G a. A p p . 89 3, 89 4 (1 ) (49 0 SE2d 21 7 ) (1 9 97 ). I t is

45u nd isp u ted that Perk ins did no t d o so here, instead f irst raising the issu e in the p retrial

o rd er mo re than eight years af ter he f iled his c o m p laint.

W hile Perk ins c o rrec tly p o ints o u t that a p retrial o rd er generally s u p ersed es all

p rio r p lead ings, see Ja co b s e n v . M u ller , 1 81 G a. A p p . 382, 384 (4) ( 352 SE2d 6 04) (1 9 86 ), the f

ac t tha t t h e p r etrial o rd e r in this case inc lu d ed a c laim f or f ees u nd er
OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 1 1 d oes no t requ ire a dif f erent r esu lt. Stated p u rp o ses o f a p retrial o rd er
inc lu d e “ [t]he simp lif

ic a tio n o f t he issu es” and “ [t]he nec e ssity o r d esirability o f
amend ments to t he p lead ings[. ]” OCGA § 9 -1 1- 16 (a) (1 ), (2). Ind eed , “ [t]w o o f the

p rin c i p a l b enef

its o f a p re- trial o rd er are the s imp lif ic atio n o f the issu es and the
li mi ti n g o f the i s s ues f o r trial. ” (Emp hasis su p p lied

. ) E c ho ls v . Bri d ges , 239 Ga. 25, 27 (235 SE2d 535) ( 1 9 7 7). A s this Co u rt has st a t ed , “ [t]he p r e- trial o rd er is an
ind isp ensa b l e mec hanism in t he trial c o u rt. I ts p u rp o s e is t o d etermine whi ch o f the
cla i ms plea ded w ill a c tu ally b e tried

. The cla ims , issu es, and ev id enc e are limited by the

o rd er and the c o u rse o f t he ac tio n is t hereby n a r r owed to exp ed ite the p ro c eed ing. ” (Citatio n and pu nc t u atio n omitted ; e mp hasis su pp lied and in origin al

. ) Wi lli a ms v . S a fewa y In s . C o . , 223 Ga. A p p . 9 3, 9 4 (47 6 SE2d 850) (1 9 96 ). T he Su p reme Co u rt o f
Geo rgia lik ew ise has stated the p u rp o se o f a p retrial o rd er:

46The p retrial o rd e r has been lik ened to a ru d der to the ship o f litigatio n,

and is i n t e nd ed t o li

mi t the cla i

ms , c o ntentio ns, d ef

enses, and ev id enc e that w i l l b e su bmitted to the j u r y, thereby narro w ing the c o u rse o f the

ac tio n, and exp ed iting its reso lu tio n. A s su c h, it is an ind isp ensable to o l f o r the ef f ic ient d isp o sitio n o f

c iv il litigatio n matters.
(Citatio ns a nd p u nc tu a t io n omitted ; emp hasis su pp lied

. ) D ept. o f Hu ma n Res o u rces v . Phi lli ps , 26 8 G a. 31 6 , 31 8 (1 ) (486 SE2d 851 ) ( 19 9 7 ). See also D eBerry v . K n o wles , 1 7 2
Ga. A p p. 1 01 , 1 05 (321 SE2d 824) (1 9 84) (no ting that “ [t]he p retrial o rd er sp ec if ic a lly
limited the issu e s to tho se raised by the p lead ings as su p p o rted by the ev id enc e” ).
Perk ins has p resented no statu te or c ase law allo w ing a p arty to ra i se f o r the f irst time, rather than li

mi t , c au ses o f ac tio n and issu es in a p retrial o rd e r. In f a c t , o u r
State’ s p rinc ip le o f no tic e p lead ing w o u ld demand the o p p o site. See generally D ehco , In c. v . Bd. o

f Regen ts of the Un iv

. S

ys tem o f G a . , 350 Ga. A p p . 7 6 0, 7 6 2 (1 ) (830 SE2d 333) (201 9 ) (“ U nd er Geo rgia’ s Civ il Prac tic e A c t, a c o mp laint mu st c o ntain a sho rt
and p lain statement o f the c laims sho w ing t hat the p lead e r is e n t i t l ed to relief , and

mu st inc lu de eno ugh d etail to af f o rd the d ef

end ant f a i r n o t i c e o f t he natu re o f the

c laim and a f

a ir o p p o rtu nity to f

r ame a resp o nsiv e plead ing. ” ) ( c itatio ns and

p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); TechBi o s , In c. v . C ha mpa gn e , 301 Ga. A p p. 5 9 2, 59 3 (6 88 SE2d

4737 8) (2009 ) (“ I t is w ell established that a p laintif f is no t requ ired to p lead in t he

c o mp laint f

ac ts su f f ic ient to set o u t eac h element o f a c au se o f ac tio n so lo ng as it p u ts

t h e o p p o sing p arty o n reaso nable no tic e o f the issu es that mu st be d ef end ed against. ” ); c f

. Bra n ch B a n k i

n g & Tru s t C

o . v . Mo rri

s ro e , 323 Ga. A p p . 248, n. 1 (7 46
SE2d 859 ) (201 3) (reiterating that a c laim asserted in a p lead ing i s a b a nd o ned if

o mitted f ro m the pretrial o rd er). H ere, it is u nd isp u ted that Perk ins did no t sp ec ially

p l e ad OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 1 1 atto rney f ees — o r e ven m entio n bad f aith, s t u b b o r n litigio u sness, o r u nnec e ssary tro u ble and exp ense — and mak e a p rayer theref o r in his

c o mp laint o r amend ed co mp laint. As su c h, the City w a s no t p u t o n no tic e that Perk ins might b e seek ing atto r ney f ees against the City f

o r ac ting in bad f

aith, being stu bbo rnly litigio u s, o r c au sing u nnec essary tro u b le and exp ense. See generally Ca lli c o tt v . S co tt

, 357 Ga. A p p . 7 80, 7 87 ( 1 ) ( a) ( 849 SE2d 547 ) (2020) ( find ing that a new c laim mad e
f o r the f irst ti me in resp o nse to a m o t io n f o r su m mary j u dgment d id no t satisf y the
liberal requ irements o f the Geo rgia Civ il Prac t ic e A c t f o r no tic e p lead ing bec au se the

c o mp laint w as no t amend e d to ad d the new c laim and the d ef end ants w ere no t giv en

reaso nable no tic e o f the c laim o r an o p po rtu nity to f r ame a resp o nsiv e p lead ing to the

c laim). N either w as the City p ermitted an o pp ortu n ity to c o nd u ct d isc o v ery o n the

48new c laim bec au se disc ov ery end ed o n Oc to ber 1 5, 2021 , and Perk ins d id no t raise this

new c a u se of ac tio n f

o r OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 1 1 fees u ntil t he p arties’ p ro po sed p retrial o rd er

w as f iled o n D ec ember 1 7 , 2021

. I t is also u nd isp u ted that the City obj ec ted to Perk ins f irst plead ing a c laim f

o r

atto r ney f ees u nd er OCGA § 13- 6

- 1 1 in the pretrial ord er and again w hen Perk ins
attemp ted t o intro d u c e ev id enc e o f f ees at trial. A c c o rd ingly, this is no t a c a se w here
issu es no t raised by the p lead ings are tried b y exp ress o r imp lied c o nsent o f the p arties.
See Bu rger Ki

ng C o rp. v . Ga rri

ck , 1 49 Ga. A p p . 1 8 6 , 1 88 (253 SE2d 852) (1 9 7 9 ) (“ Sinc e the ap p ellees in thi s c a s e m a de a clear o b j ec tio n to the ev id e nc e o f the
ad d itio nal c laims, it c anno t be said that t hese c laims w ere tried w ith t he ap p ellee’ s
exp ress o r imp lied co nsent. Thu s, in the absenc e of an amend ment to the p lead ings,
the trial c o u rt w a s no t a u tho riz ed to ad mit this e v id enc e o r to enter j u d gment f o r any

o f the c laims b a sed on it. ” ). Perk ins had an o p p o rtu nity t o amend his c o mp laint af ter
the City o bj ec ted to the ad d itio n o f this new c laim and p rio r t o the c o u rt’ s entry o f the

p retrial ord er, yet he d id no t d o so . See OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 1 5 (a); Preferred Ri s k In s . C o . v . Bo yki n , 1 7 4 Ga. A p p . 2 6 9 , 2 7 5 (7 ) (329 SE2d 9 00) (1 985) (f ind ing that p arty sho u ld

49hav e mo v ed to amend his p lead ings to ad d a c laim fo r OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 1 1 f ees at the time
the o p p o s ing p arty raised its o b j ec tio n).

A ltho u gh Perk ins argu es that “ [t]he trial c o u rt either imp lic itly o verru led the City’ s o bj ec tio n w hen it signed and entered the Pretrial Ord er w ith the p lead ed 1 3- 6

-
1 1 claim inc lu d ed as an issu e f o r j u ry d eterminatio n o r it imp lic itly mad e the nec essary
f ind ings to o v e rru le the o b j ec ti o n w hen it u ltimately su bmitted that c laim to the j u ry[,]” the rec o rd s ho ws o therw ise. A s the trial c o u rt stated in its o rd er o n the City’ s

mo tio n f o r j u d gment no tw ithstand ing the v erd ic t :
T he Co urt reserv ed ru ling o n that issu e bu t allo w ed the Plai n t i f f t o p resent w hatev er ev id enc e he had o n the issu e o f atto rneys’ f ees. T he Co u rt ind ic ated that it w o u ld su bmit the issu e to the j u ry bec a use in the

ev ent that the Co u rt c ommit t e d erro r f o r exc lu d ing t he atto rneys’ f ees issu e at that j unc tu re, it w o u ld hav e to retry the entire c ase
u nnec essarily. The Co urt anno u nc ed that it w ou ld ru le o n the atto rneys’ f ees issu e af

ter the j u ry retu r ned its v erd ic t in the ev ent that [ t]he City f iled a M o tio n f

o r J u d gment N o tw ithst a n d i n g the Verd ic t. The Co u rt p resented a s p ec ial v erd ic t fo rm w hic h sep arated t he c o mp ensato ry d amages f ro m the atto rneys’ f

ees.

I nd eed , when Perk ins attemp ted to i n t r o d u ce ev id enc e o f atto rney f ees o n the f

if th d ay

o f trial, the City o b jec ted , and the trial c o u rt u ltimately anno unc e d as f ollo w s:

50I believ e that I am c o rrec t in my think ing that bec au se it w as no t in the

c o mp laint o r in the amend ed c o mp laint, the requ est f o r atto rney’ s f

ees sp ec if ic ally stating that yo u ’ re d o ing it u nd er 13- 6

- 1 1 , that it sho u ld no t be p resented t o t he j u ry. B u t bec au s e it’ s in the p retrial o rd er, and there

are so m any d if

f erent c a s e s g o ing o ne way o r the o ther abo u t it, ev en tho u gh yo u -all — the def

end ants d id obj ec t to 1 3- 6

- 11 , s aying it w as no t in the c o mp laint — w hat I think I ’ m go ing t o d o , j u st so I d o n’ t hav e to try yo u r c ase again , I ’ m g o i n g to su bmit it to the j u ry o n a sep arate i nterro gato ry so that if I am w ro ng in my think ing, then t he Co u r t o f A p p eals — bec au se I ’ m su re yo u - all w ill tak e it u p t here— they can w rite it o f f , o r I c an d o a J N OV o n it, o kay? B u t w e’ ll hav e a nu mber. I f they

— if y o u believ e that y o u ’ r e e n titled to so mething, yo u w o n’ t hav e t o try this again, o k ay?

W e agree w ith the trial c o u r t that Perk ins d id no t pro p erly p lead an OCGA §

1 3- 6 -1 1 c laim in his co mp laint o r amend ed c o mp laint a nd , u nd er the c irc umstanc es o f
this c ase, w as p rec lu ded f ro m raising the new c laim in the p retrial o rd er. A trial c o urt
is no t au tho riz ed to ad mit e v i d e nc e o r e nter j u d gment f or new c au s es o f ac tio n
inc lu d ed f

o r the f irst time in a p retrial o rd er and no t r aised in t he p lead ings w here the

o p p o sing p arty mak e s a c lear obj ec tio n in the p retrial o r d er and c o ntinu ing o b j ec tio ns
thereaf ter at trial to the ad m i ss i o n o f e vid enc e su p p o rting the new c laims. “ Ou r
ho ld ing here is c o nsistent w ith the general ru le that, in o u r l e gal system, p arties are

51resp o nsible f o r their o w n atto r ney f

ees and that an aw a rd o f f

ees is an exc ep tio n to this

ru le. [Perk ins’ ] rec o v ery o f a tto rney f e es u nd er OCGA § 1 3- 6 -1 1 is p rec lu d ed by [ his]
f ailu re to sp ec if

ic ally p lead and p ray f

o r them in the p etitio n. ” D ept. o f Tra n s p. , 244
Ga. A p p . at 7 52- 753 (1 ). W e f ind no erro r in the t r ial c o u rt’ s legal d e c isio n t o o v ertu rn the j u ry’ s OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 1 1 f ee aw ard in this c ase. 7

Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. D o yle, P. J. , an d W

a t ki n s , J. , co n cu r .

7 I n light o f o u r d ec isio n af f irming the trial c o u rt’ s o rd e r granting the City’ s j u d gment no tw ithstand ing the v erd ic t and o v ertu rning the OCGA § 1 3- 6

- 1 1 atto rney f ees aw a rd ed to Perk ins based on his f ailu re to p ro p erly p lead this c laim, w e need no t ad d ress the trial c o u rt’ s alternativ e reaso n f o r o v e rtu rning the aw a rd based o n inad equ a te ev id enc e to su p p o rt the f ees.
52