FOURTH D I VI SI ON

ELLI NGTON, P. J.

, BRA N CH and M ERCI ER, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly 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.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

A ugust 15, 2016



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 6 A0 85 2 . M O RDECAI et al . v . CAIN. J E-0 3 2

E LLI N G T O N , Pres i d i n g J ud g e.

A Co b b Co u n t y ju ry ret u rn ed a pl ai n t i ff’ s v erd i ct i n t h i s m o to r v eh icl e co l l i s i o n

cas e bro ug h t b y Barb ara M o rd ecai ag ai n s t M i ch ael Ca i n

. 1 M o rd ecai ap p eal s

,

co n ten d in g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n fai l i n g t o q u al ify t h e pro s p ect iv e ju ro rs wi th

reg ard t o St at e Farm M u tu al Au t o m o b i l e In su ran ce Co m p an y

, h er u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t

co v erag e carri er, an d i n ex cl u d i n g ev i d en ce t h a t C a i n p led g u i lt y t o d ri v i ng o n t h e

wro ng s i d e o f t h e ro ad

. 2 Fo r t h e reas o n s ex p l ai n ed b el ow, we rev ers e.

1 In ad di ti o n

, M o rd ecai ’ s h u s b an d

, W i l l i am M o rd ecai

, as s ert ed a cl ai m fo r l o ss

o f co n s o rt i u m

. Th e j u ry ret u rn ed a v erd i ct i n fav o r o f Wi l l i a m M o rd ecai o n h i s

d eri v at i v e cl ai m . He al s o ap p eal s an d jo i n s i n h i s wi fe’ s arg u m en t s.

2 St at e Farm

, as M o rd ecai ’ s un i n s u red m o to ri st carri er, el ect ed t o t ry t h i s cas e

i n t he n am e o f t h e i nd i v i d u al d efen d an t , M i ch ael Cai n

.1 . M o rd ecai co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y i n g h er req ues t t o h av e

p ro s p ect i v e j u ro rs q u al ifi ed i n t h e co u rt ro o m d u ri n g v o ir d i re wi t h reg ard t o St at e

Farm

, h er u n i n s u red m ot o ri s t i n s u ran ce carri er.

Th e reco rd s s h o ws t h e fo l lo wi n g

. O n M ay 18

, 2 01 5

, Cai n an d St at e Farm

m o ved i n l i m in e t o “ [e] x cl u d[e] an y q u es ti o n in g i n Vo i r Di re b y co u n s el co n cern i n g

i n s u ran ce u n l es s t h e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs h av e s t at ed

, in res p o n s e t o an i n q u i ry

co n cern in g cu rren t em

p l o y m en t

, t h at t h ey p res en t l y wo rk fo r an i n s u ran ce co m p an y .”

Lat er t h at d ay

, t h e part i es fi l ed a p ro p o se d co ns o li d at ed pret ri al o rd er. Parag rap h 4

o f t h e p ret ri al or d e r r e a d s as fo l l ows : “ Th e ju ry w il l b e q u al i fi ed as t o rel at i o n s h ip

wi t h t h e fo l l o w i n g: [ 3 ] W i l l iam M o rd ecai

, Barb ara S. M o rd ecai

, M i ch ael An t h o ny

Cai n an d

. . . o ffi cers

, d i rect o rs

, em p l o y ees o r po l i cy h o l d ers o f

. . . St at e Farm

. . . to

d et erm i n e i f an y ju ro r i s rel at ed b y co n s an g u i n i t y (b l o o d ) o r affi n i t y (m arri ag e) wi t h in

t h e s i xt h d eg ree acco rd i n g t o t h e ci vi l l aw. Th e ju ro rs s h o u l d al s o b e q u al ifi ed as to

s u ch rel at i o n s h i p wi t h th e fo l l o wi n g at t o rn ey s an d wi t n es s es ” l is t ed th ere. Parag rap h

4 t h en i n d i cat es t h at Cai n an d St at e Farm “ o b ject [ed ] t o t h e ju ry b ei n g q ual i fi ed as to

. . . St a t e Farm as [i t h as ] n o fi n an ci al i n t eres t i n th e cas e.” Cai n an d St at e Farm

3 Th i s t rack s t h e fo rm ci v i l p ret ri al o rd er p ro v id ed i n t h e u n i fo rm co u rt ru l es

. See U n ifo rm Su p eri o r Co u rt Ru l e 7 .2 (“ (4 ) Th e ju ry wi l l b e q u a l i f i ed as to

rel at i o n s h i p wi t h t h e fo l lo wi n g :

_

_ .”)

2req u es t ed t h at

, i f t h e co u rt el ect ed to q ual i fy t h e p ro s p ect iv e ju ro rs c o n c ern i n g

i n s u ran ce, q u al i fi cat i o n o ccu r “ o u t s i d e t h e co u rt ro o m an d i n t h e ju ry as s em b l y area

p ri o r t o tri al .” In t h e sam e p arag rap h o f t h e co ns o l id at ed pret ri al o rd er, Parag rap h 4,

M o rd ecai as s ert ed t h at b e c a u s e “ t h i s i s an u n i n s ured m o t o ri s t cas e

. . . St at e Farm

cl earl y h a s a fi n an ci al i n t eres t i n t h e cas e.” In ad d it i o n

, M o rd ecai as s ert ed

, “ [a] s to

St at e Farm

. . . , t h e ju ry s h o u l d b e q u al i fi ed as t o wh e t h er an y ju ro r i s an o ffi cer,

d i rect o r, em

p l o y ee [o r] p o l icy h o l d er. Th e ju ry s h o u l d b e q u al i fi ed i n th e co u rt ro o m

,

n o t t h e ju ry as s em

b ly ro o m

, so co u ns el can ex p l o re th ei r an s wers .” (Ci t at io n o m i t t ed .)

At t h e b eg in ni n g o f t h e t ri al o n J u l y 2 7

, 2 0 1 5, t h e t ri al co u rt fi rs t t o o k u p t h e

m o ti o n i n l i m i n e. Th e ju dg e i n fo rm ed co u n sel t h at

, “ wi t h res p ect to

. . . th e i n s u ran ce,

t h i s i s t h e q ues t i o n t h at was as k ed ” b y t he ju ry as s em b ly ad m i n i s t r at o r t o al l

p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs i n t he ju ry as s em b l y ro om : “ A re y o u an o ffi ce r

, e m p l o y ee,

s t ock h o ld er, ag en t

, d i rect o r, or p o l i cy h o l d er o f S tat e Farm Au to m o b i l e M u t u al

In s u ran ce? ” M o rd ecai ’ s co un s el as k ed a b o u t fo l l o wi ng up on affi rm at i v e an s wers

.

Th e ju dg e res p o n ded

, “ I h av e n o t b een ad v i s ed th at an y on e an s wered y es [ ] t o t h at

q u es ti o n .” Th e ju d g e t hen t oo k u p cert ai n ev i d en t i ary m at t ers i n t h e p ret ri al o rd er.

N e x t

, t h e co u rt t u rn ed t o ju ry sel ect i on an d as k ed co u n sel t o i den t i fy t h e

p ers o n s an d en t it i es ab o ut w h i ch t h ey wi s h ed t h e co u rt t o as k t h e p ro sp ect iv e ju ro rs

3q u al i fy in g q u es t i o n s

. A ft er li s t i n g t h e p art i es

, t h ei r at t o rn ey s

, an d t wo n o n -p art y

wi t n es s es , t h e ju d g e co n t i n u ed “ [o ] ffi cers , d i rect o rs , em p lo y ees o r p o l i cy h o l d ers o f

t h e St at e Farm

– St at e Farm h as b een d o n e. I can d o it ag ai n . . . . I d o n ’ t k n o w wh y

I w o u l d n eed t o

, b u t I’ ll b e g l ad t o h ear fro m [M o rd ecai ’ s co u n s el ]

, i f y ou n eed t o.”

M o rd ecai ’ s co u n s el res p o n d ed

, “ If t h ere are n o p eo p l e t hat are o ffi cers o f St at e Farm

,

we d o n’ t n eed t o g o a n y fu rt her t h an t h at .” Th e ju d g e s u m m ari zed t h at h e wo u ld

q u al i fy t h e ju ry as t o M o rd ecai

, h er h u s b an d

, Cai n

, t h e at t orn ey s an d law fi rm s

, an d

t h e wi t n es s es

.

Th e t ri al co u rt cal l ed fo r a p an el o f 2 7 p ro sp ect i v e ju ro rs t o b e bro u g h t t o t h e

co u rt ro o m an d p o s ed q u al i fy i n g q u es t i o n s, as ki n g i f an y were rel at ed t o t he p art i es

,

t h ei r at t o rn ey s

, a n d t h e wi t n es s es

. No n e of th e p ro sp ect i v e ju ro rs res p o n d ed

p o s i t i v e ly

, an d t h e t ri al co u rt m o v ed on t o v o ir d i re ex am i nat i o n o f t h e p ro s p ect i v e

ju ro rs b y co un s el

.

Aft er t he v o i r d i re ex am i n at i o n

, an d b efo re b eg i n n i n g ju ry s el ect i on

, t h e ju d g e

cal l ed co u n s el t o th e ben ch

. M o rd ecai ’ s co u n sel “ as k ed t h at t h e p an el b e q u al i fi ed as

t o St at e Farm ,” an d Cai n ’ s co u n s e l “ o b ject ed on t h e g ro u n d s t he j u ro rs h ad b een

q u al i fi ed as t o St at e Farm

. . . i n t h e ju ry as s em b l y area.” Th e t ri al co urt “ d en i ed

[M o rd ecai ’ s ] req u es t to q u al i fy t h e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs as to St at e Farm

. . . i n t h e

4co u rt ro o m

, b u t ag reed t o h av e t h e ju ry as s em b l y ad m i n i s t rat o r ex p l ai n ho w t h e p an el

was q u al i fi ed as t o St at e Farm

. . . i n t he ju ry as s em b l y a r e a

. ” 4 N e x t

, t h e t ri al co u rt

d i rect ed co u n s el t o ex erci s e p erem p t o ry s tri k es t o sel ect 1 2 j u r o r s

. Th e t ri al co u rt

ad m i n is t ered t h e o at h, em p an el i n g t h e ju ry

. Op en i n g s t at em en ts fo l l o w ed

, an d t h e

t ri al co u rt d i rect ed M o rd ecai ’ s co u n s el t o cal l h i s fi rs t wi t nes s

.

Aft er M o rd eca i ’s h u s b an d t es t i fi ed

, an d wh en t h e ju ry was o u t s i d e t h e

co u rt ro o m

, t h e tri al co u rt s u m m o n e d t o t h e co urt ro o m t h e ju ry as s em b l y

ad m i n is t rat o r, wh o h ad po l l ed t h e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs i n t h e ju ry as s em b ly ro o m

. Th e

co u rt as k ed t he ad m i n i s t rat or o n t h e reco rd wh at qu es t io n s h e h ad as k ed in t h e ju ry

as s em b l y ro o m ab o ut St at e Farm

. Sh e rep l i ed

, as th e t ri al co u rt h ad al read y i n fo rm ed

co u ns el at t h e p ret ri al h eari ng , t h at s h e read t h e fo l l o wi n g to t h e en t i re g ro u p : “ Are

y o u an o ffi cer, em

p l o y ee, s t o ck h o l d er, ag en t

, d irect o r o r p o l i cy ho l d er of St at e Farm

Au t om o b i l e M u tu al In s u ran ce Ho l d i n g? ” Sh e s ai d t h at ev ery p ro sp ect i ve ju ro r wh o

an s wered “ y es ” w as ex cl u d ed fro m th e p an el t h at was s en t t o t h e co u rt ro o m fo r v o i r

d i re i n M o rd ecai ’ s cas e. Th e co u rt as k ed M o rd ecai ’ s co u n sel i f h i s i nq u i ry was

s at i s fi ed

. M o rd ecai ’ s co u n s el res p o nd ed

, “ It s at is fi ed m y i n q u i ry

. I’ m n o t s u re t h at

4 W e n o t e t h a t t h e b en ch co n feren ce was n o t t ran s cri b ed

. Th e p art i es

s u p p lem en t ed t h e t ran scri p t wi t h a st i p u l at i o n reg ard i n g t h e s u bs t an ce o f t h e co l l o q uy

an d ru li n g

.

5s at i s fi es th e law. I t h i n k t h ey hav e t o b e q u es t i on ed i n th e co u rt ro om .” Th e ju ry was

t h en b ro u g h t b ack i n to t h e co u rt ro o m an d t h e t ri al co n t i n ued

.

I n r e s ponse to M ord ecai ’ s ap pel l at e arg u m en t

, Cai n co n t en d s t h at th e t ri al co ur t

q u al i fi ed t h e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs as t o St at e Farm t h ro u g h th e p ro ced u re o f h av i n g t h e

ju ry as s em

b l y ad m i n i s t rat or p o s e t h e qu es t i o n t o th em i n th e ju ry as s em b l y ro o m an d

t h at t h e t ri al ju d g e was n o t req u i red t o p e r s o n a ll y q u al i fy t h e p ro s p ect i ve ju ro rs a

s eco n d t i m e i n t h e co u rt ro o m

. In ad d i t i o n, Cai n co n t en d s t h at

, b ecau s e M o rd ecai ’ s

co u ns el d i d n o t ren ew h is o b ject i o n t o t h e sel ect ed ju ry aft er t h e ju ry as s em b l y

ad m i n is t rat o r’ s ap p earan ce i n co urt

, s h e w ai v ed an y d i s qu al i fi cat i o n o bject i o n s h e

m ay h av e h ad

. He arg u es t h at M o rd ecai ’ s “ d eci s i o n t o s eat a ju ry an d al l o w t h e t ri al

t o p ro ceed [,] wi t h o u t t h e i s s u es co n cern i n g ju ry q u al ifi cat i o n s res ol v i n g

, co n s t i t u t es

a wai v er of t h e ri gh t t o ch al l en g e t h ei r q u al i fi cat i o n [,] an d i t i s co n cl u s iv el y p res u m ed

t h at n o h arm

res ul t ed .” (Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .) W e d is ag ree.

It i s th e l o ng s t an d i ng ru l e i n Geo rg i a t h at

, t o en s u re t h e ri g h t o f tri al b y

an i m part i al ju ry

, a part y t o a ci v il cas e i s e n t i t l ed t o h av e t h e ju ry

q u al ifi ed by t he co u rt as to an y i ns u ran ce carri er wi t h a fi nan ci al i n t eres t

i n t h e cas e. It i s an eq ual l y l o n g s tan d i ng Geo rg i a ru l e t h at wh ere a ci v i l

ju ry was n o t p ro p erl y q u al i fi ed in t h i s way

, an d wh ere t h e p art y s eek i n g

s u ch q u al i fi cat i o n h as p ro p erl y p res erv ed t h e i s su e fo r rev i ew, p reju di ce

6t o t h at p art y wi l l b e p res u m ed

, an d i n t h e ab s en ce o f p ro p er reb u t t al

, a

n ew t ri al m

u s t b e o rd ered

.

(Ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed .) Fo r d Mo t o r Co

. v. Co n l ey , 2 9 4 Ga. 5 3 0

, 5 5 0 (3 ) (b ) (7 5 7 SE2 d

2 0 ) (2 0 1 4 ). 5

Qu al i fy in g each p ro s p ect i v e ju ro r as t o a p o s si b l e rel at i o n s hi p wi t h a n o n p art y

l i ab i l i t y i n s u rer t h at h as an in t eres t i n t he o u t co m e o f t h e cas e m u s t be d on e “ b efo re

t h e p art i es b eg i n t o s t ri k e a ju ry [,] ” b ecau s e t h e p art ies h av e “ t h e ri g h t t o a p an el o f

i m p art i al [p ro s p ect i v e] ju ro r s f r o m wh i ch t o s el ect th e tri al ju ry .” (Pu n ct uat i o n an d

fo o t n o t es o m i t t ed

. ) Lewi s v. Emo r y Un i v.

, 2 3 5 Ga. Ap p. 8 1 1

, 8 1 3 -8 1 4 (1 ) (5 0 9 SE2 d

6 3 5 ) ( 1 9 9 8 )

. S ee al s o At l an t a Co a ch Co

. v. Co b b

, 1 7 8 Ga. 5 4 4

, 5 5 5 (1 7 4 SE 1 3 1 )

(1 9 3 4) (acco rd ).

5 See a l s o A t l a n ta Co a ch Co

. v. Co b b

, 1 7 8 G a. 54 4

, 5 4 9 -5 5 2 (1 7 4 SE 1 3 1 )

(1 9 3 4 ) ( a c c o r d ); OCGA § 1 5 -1 2 -1 3 5 (d i s q u al i fi cat i on of ju ro rs b as ed o n a

rel at i o n s h i p t o a p art y

o r an i nt eres t i n t h e cas e); Rees e v. F o r d Mo t o r Co

. , 3 2 0 Ga.

Ap p

. 7 8

, 8 0

, n

. 2 (7 3 8 SE2 d 3 0 1 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ In Geo rg i a, t h e ri g h t t o an i m p art i al ju ry

m an d at es t h at t h e ju ry

b e q ual i fi ed as t o an y i ns u rers wi t h a fi n an ci al i nt eres t i n t h e

cas e.”) (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ); Fran k E. J en k i n s III et al

., G a. A u t o m ob i l e In s

. L aw § 1 0 :5

(2 0 1 5-2 01 6 ed .) (“ [I] t i s i m perat i v e u n d er G eo rg i a l aw t h at a t ri al co u rt q u al i fy each

p ro s p ect i v e ju ro r as to a p o s s i b l e rel at i o n s h i p wi t h a n o n p art y l i ab i l i t y i n s u rer wh i ch

h as an i n teres t i n th e o ut co m e o f t h e cas e. In fact

, t h e ru l e i s s o wel l i n g rai ned i n t h e

l aw t h at fai l ure t o q u al i fy t h e ju ry up o n req u es t b y co u n s el d em an d s a n ew t ri al

. . . . Th u s, t he t ri al co u rt i s ch arg ed wi t h t he res p o n s i b i li t y to q u al i fy t h e ju ry as t o t h o s e

co m p an i es wh i ch i n su re a p art y ag ai n s t w h o m d am ag es are p o t en ti al l y reco v erab l e

i n t he act i o n .”) (fo o t n o t e o m i t t ed ).

7In ad d i t i o n

, q u al i fy i n g each p ro s p ect i ve ju ro r as t o i n s u rers i f req u es t ed m u s t

b e d o n e i n o p en co u rt i n th e p res en ce of t h e p art i es (an d co un s el ), becau s e a p art y h as

t h e ri g h t t o ex am i n e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs u p o n t h e q u es t i o ns o f t h ei r q u al i fi cat i o n,

i n cl u d i n g q u es t i o n s reg ard i n g d i s q u al i fy i n g t i es t o i n s u ran ce co m p an i es

. Fo r d Mo t o r

Co

. v. Co n l ey

, 29 4 Ga. at 5 5 0-5 51 (3 ) (b ); A tl an t a Co a ch Co

. v. Co b b

, 1 7 8 Ga. at 5 5 2.

See al s o Lewi s v. Emo r

y U n iv.

, 2 3 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 1 3 -8 1 4 (1 ) (a p art y i s en t i t l ed to

h av e p ro s p ect i ve ju ro rs ex am i n ed b y co u ns el ). Cai n arg u es t h at “ Geo rg i a Co u rt s h av e

m ad e cl ear t h at t h e d eci si o n o f wh en an d wh ere t o q ual i fy th e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs i s

i n t h e s o u n d d i s cret i o n o f th e p r e s i d i n g ju d g e.” Cai n ci t es t o t wo cas es fro m t h i s

Co u rt w h i ch d i s cu s s i n d i ct a t h e co n cern t h at q u es t i on i ng p ro s pect i ve ju ro rs as to

p o t en t i al ly d i s q u al i fy in g rel at i o n s h i p s wi t h i n s urers i m p ro p erl y in fo rm s t h em t h at t h e

i n t eres t o f an i ns u ran ce co m p an y i s at s tak e, wh i ch i s irrel ev an t t o t h e i s s ues b efo re

t h em : Pa tt er

so n v. La u d

er b ack

, 2 1 1 G a. Ap p

. 8 9 1, 8 9 5 -8 9 6

, n

. 2 (3 ) (4 4 0 SE2 d 6 7 3 )

(1 9 9 4), o v erru led o n o t h e r gro u n d s b y W a r r en v. Ba l l a r d

, 2 66 Ga. 4 0 8 (4 6 7 SE2 d

8 9 1 ) (1 9 96 ), an d Fr a n kl i n v. Ta cket t

, 2 0 9 Ga. Ap p. 4 4 8

, 45 0 -4 5 5 ( 4 3 3 SE2 d 7 1 0 )

(1 9 9 3), Beas l ey

, J

., co n cu rri n g s p eci al l y

. In Pa t t er s on v. La u der b a ck

, we s u g g es t ed

t h at o n e “ p ract i cal s o l u ti o n [ ] t o t h e pro b l em

. . . i s t o u ti l ize t h e w ri t t en ju ro r

q u es ti o n n ai res n o w co m

m o n l y i n u s e t o d i s co v er s u ch d i s q ual i fi cat io n s rat h er t h an

8d o i n g so oral ly i n t he p res en ce o f al l ju ro rs .” P a t t er s o n v. La u d

er ba ck

, 2 11 Ga. Ap p.

at 8 9 5 -8 9 6 , n . 2 (3 ). In At la n t a Co a ch Co

. v. Co b b

, h o wev er, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f

Geo rg i a ad d res s ed “ t h e r i g h t t o exa mi n e t h e j u ro r

s in o p en co u rt u p o n t h e q u es t i o n

o f t h ei r q u a l i

f ica t i o n

, wh ere t h ey co u l d b e p erm i t t e d t o t e s t i fy ei t h er p ro o r co n in

rel at i o n t h eret o.” (Em

ph as i s su p p l i ed .) 1 7 8 G a. at 5 5 2. A l t ho u g h t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

h as no t d i rect l y b een pres en ted wi t h t h e i s su e “ w het h er th ere i s an y way t o ad eq u at el y

q u al i fy ju ro rs i n ci vi l cas es as t o a d efen dan t ’ s po t en t i al ly l iab l e in s u rers s h o rt o f

d i rect l y as k i n g t h e ju ro rs ab o ut rel at i o n s h i ps wi t h t h e p art i cu l ar i n s uran ce co m p an i es

at i s s u e[,] ” 6 t h e Su p rem e Co u rt recen t l y reco g n ized At l a n t a Co a ch Co

. v. Co b b as t h e

s em i n al cas e i n Geo rg i a reg ard i n g ju ry q u al i fi cat i o n as t o a defen d an t ’ s i n s u ran ce

carri ers an d fo u n d “ n o co m p el l i n g reas o n ” to n o w ch an g e t h e l aw es t ab l i s h ed t h erei n.

Fo r d Mo t o r Co

. v. Co n l ey

, 2 9 4 Ga. at 5 5 6 (3 ) (b ) (3 ). Acco rd in g l y

, we co n cl u d e t h at

ex i s t in g p reced en t e s t a b l i s h es t h at

, wh en a p art y req ues t s t hat qu al i fi cat i o n o f

p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs be d o n e du ri ng v o i r d i re an d i n o p e n co u rt

, th e t ri al co urt ’ s

d i s cre t i o n wh en an d wh ere t o qu al i fy t h em i s

, i n fact

, l i m i t ed

. T h at i s

, al t h o u g h s o

6 Fo r d Mo t o r Co . v. Co n l ey , 2 9 4 Ga. at 5 5 5 (3 ) (b ) (3 ).

9cal l ed “ p req u al i fi cat i o n ” 7 m ay b e p e r m i t t ed

, a part y wh o as k s t h at q ual i fi cat i o n o f

p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs b e d o n e d u r i n g v o i r d ire an d i n o pen co u rt i s en t i t l ed t o t h at

p ro ced ure, reg ard l es s wh et h er p rospe c tive j ur or s a re p req u al ifi ed b y a co u rt em p l o y ee

b e f o r e t h ey are s en t t o t h e co u rt ro o m

. In t h i s cas e, M o rd ecai s p eci fi cal l y req u e s t e d

b efo re t ri al t h at t h e ju dg e qu es t i o n th e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs

, i n t h e co u rt ro o m an d i n t h e

p res en ce o f co u n sel

, ab o u t di s qu al i fy i n g rel at i o n s h i p s w i t h St at e Farm b y s o s t at i n g

i n t h e p arag rap h d es i g nat ed in t h e s t an d ard fo rm p ret ri al o rd er fo r ju ry q ual i fi cat i o n

i s su es

. See i d

. at 5 5 6 (4 ) (Th e req u i rem en t i n t h e t ri al co u rt ru l es t h at each p art y “ fi l e

a p ro p o s ed p ret ri al ord er in wh i ch th e p art y m u st

, am on g o th er t h i n g s

, co m p l et e t h e

s t at em en t : ‘ Th e ju ry wi l l b e qu al i fi ed as t o rel at io n s hi p wi t h t h e fo l l o wi n g :

_ _ ’

. . .

al l o ws a p art y t o l i st al l o f th e i n d i v i d u a l s an d en t i ti es

, i n cl u d in g i n su rers

, t h at t h e

p art y wan t s t h e co u rt t o co n s id er i n q u al i fy i n g t h e ju ry [.] ”).

A t ri al co u rt ’ s fai l u re t o q u al i fy p ro s p ect iv e ju ro rs wi t h reg ard t o a p art i cu l ar

rel at i o n s h i p m ay b e wai v ed b y a p art y ’ s fai lu re t o o b j ect wh en t h e t ri al co urt o m i t s

t h e q ues t io n at t ri al

. 8 In t hi s cas e, M o rd ecai s p eci fi cal l y req ues t ed b efo re t ri al t h at t h e

7 S ee P a r

k v. Ni ch o l

s

, 3 0 7 Ga. Ap p. 8 4 1

, 8 4 2 (7 0 6 SE2 d 6 9 8 ) (2 0 1 1 ) ;

Pa t t er s o n v. La u d

er b a ck , 2 11 Ga. Ap p . at 8 9 5 -8 96 , n . 2 (3 ).

8 Ci t iz en s & S

o u t h er n Na t . Ba n k v. Ha s ki n s , 2 5 4 Ga. 1 3 1

, 1 3 8 (5 ) (3 2 7 SE2 d

1 9 2 ) (1 9 85 ). See a l s o F

o r d M o t o r Co

. v. Co n l ey

, 2 9 4 Ga. at 5 53 (3 ) (b ) (2 ) (“ Th e

10t ri al co u rt q u al i fy p ro s p ect i ve ju ro rs as t o St at e Farm i n t h e co u rt ro o m

an d as s ert ed

h e r ri g ht t o h av e co u n s el ex p l ore t h ei r an s wers

. As Cai n h as ex p res s l y s ti p u l at e d

,

aft er t h e t ri al ju d g e po s ed q u al ifi cat i o n qu es ti o ns t o t h e p ro s pect i v e ju ro rs

, o m i t t i n g

t h e q u es t i o n ab o u t St at e Farm

, an d b efo re ju ry s el ect i on

, M o rd e c a i r e p eat ed h er

req u es t t h at t h e p ro s p ect i ve ju ro rs b e qu al i fi ed a s t o St at e Farm i n th e co u rt ro o m

,

Cai n o b ject ed

, an d t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed th e req u es t

. W e co ncl u d e t h at t h i s was

s u ffi ci en t u n d er t h e ci r c u m s t a n ces t o p res erv e fo r ap p el lat e rev iew t h e tri al co urt ’ s

erro r i n f ai l i n g t o q u al ify t h e p ro s p ect i v e j u ro rs as M ord ecai req u es t ed

. Cai n ’ s

arg u m en t t hat M ord ecai wi l l in gl y d eci d ed t o p ro ceed wi t h s eat i n g t h e ju ry an d t ry i n g

t h e cas e wi t h t he is s u e co ncern i n g ju ry q u al i fi cat i o n s u n res ol v ed i s d efeat ed b y t h e

p art i es ’ s t i p u l at i o n

. Th e i s s u e wa s res o l v ed wh en t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed M o rd ecai ’ s

req u es t an d d i rect ed co un s el t o s e l e c t th e ju ry

. Fu rt h erm o re, w e fi n d n o bas i s fo r

co n cl u d in g t h at t h e tri al co u rt ’ s act i o n o f su m m o n i n g t h e ju ry as s em

b l y ad m i n i s t rat o r

t o th e co u rt ro o m in t h e m i d dl e of M o rd ecai ’ s cas e-i n -ch ief t o hav e h er d es cri b e wh at

d i s q u al i fi cat i o n o f a ju r o r m ay b e ex pres s l y o r i m p li ed l y wai v ed b y a p art y h av i n g

cau s e t o co m

pl ai n

, an d [,] i f ex p res s l y o r i m p l ied l y wai v ed

, i t i s co n cl u s i v el y

p res u m ed t h at n o h arm o r b en efi t t o ei t h er p art y res ul t ed fro m th e d i s q u al i f i c a t i o n

,

an d [,] wh ere i t ap p ea r s t h at t h e p art y h av i n g cau s e t o co m p l ai n ei t her k n ew o f t h e

rel at i o n s h i p o r co u l d h av e d i s co v ered i t b y th e t i m el y ex erci se o f o rd in ary d i l i g en ce[

] an d rem ai n ed s i l en t

, th at p art y wi ll be p res u m ed t o h av e wai v ed t h e

d i s q u al i fi cat i o n

. ”) (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at io n o m i tt ed ).

11h ad t ran s p i r e d i n t h e ju ry as sem b ly ro o m t ri g g ered an y req ui rem en t t h at M o rd ecai

r e n e w her req u es t th at t he p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs b e pro p erl y q u al i fi ed

. Th i s wo u l d b e

n o n s en s i cal

, g i v en t h at t h e t ri al co u rt h ad decl ared al l 2 7 p ro s p ect i ve ju ro rs qu al i fi ed

,

1 2 o f t h em h ad b een s el ect ed

, s wo rn

, an d i m p an el ed

, an d t he rem ai n i n g 1 5 rel eas ed

.

See Lewi s v. Emo ry Un i v.

, 2 3 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 13 -8 1 4 (1 ). Ab sen t an y req u irem en t t h at

M o rd ecai at t h at t i m e ren ew her o b ject i on t o th e t ri al co urt ’ s erro r, we co n cl u d e t h at

h er co u n s el ’ s s o m e w h a t e q u i v o cal s t at em en t

, “ I’ m n o t s u re t h at sat i s fi es th e l aw. I

t h i n k t h e y h a v e t o b e qu es t i o n ed i n t h e co urt ro o m [,] ” d id n ot o p erat e t o wai v e t h e

erro r.

Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s fa i l u r e t o q u al i fy t h e ju ry as req u es t ed by co u ns el en t i tl es

M o rd e c a i t o a n ew t ri al

. Fo r d Mo to r Co

. v. Co n ley

, 29 4 Ga. at 5 5 6 (3 ) (c); At l a n ta

Co a ch Co . v. Co b b

, 1 7 8 Ga. at 5 5 4 . Acco rd i n g l y

, t h e ju d g m en t i s rev ers ed

.

W e wi l l ad d res s an y rem ai n i n g cl ai m s o f erro r th at b ear on ev i d en t iary m at t ers

l i kel y t o recu r at an y s u bs eq uen t ret ri al o f t h e c a s e

. S e e T o l er v. G eo r

g ia Dep t

. of

Tr a ns p

. , 3 2 8 Ga. Ap p. 1 44 , 1 4 9 (1 ) (7 6 1 SE2 d 5 5 0 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

2

. M o rd ecai co n t en d s t h at t h e t r i a l co u rt erred i n d en y i ng h er req u es t to

i n t ro du ce a cert i fi ed co p y o f C ai n ’ s b o n d fo rfei t u re t o t h e ch arg e o f d ri v i ng o n t h e

12wro ng s i d e o f t h e ro ad 9 as ev i d en ce t h at h e en t ered a g ui l t y p l ea t o t h at ch arg e. In a

rel at ed cl ai m o f erro r, M o rd ecai co n t en d s t he t ri al co u rt i m p ro p erl y di rect ed d efen s e

co u ns el t o i n s t ru ct Cai n to ch an g e h i s t ri al t es t i m o n y

. “ Th e d eci s i o n t o ad m i t o r

ex cl u d e ev i d en ce i s co m

m i t t ed t o t h e s ou n d d i s cret i on o f t h e tri al co u rt an d wi l l n ot

b e d i s t u rb ed o n ap p eal ab sen t a cl ear ab u s e o f d i scret i o n.” (Ci tat i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed .) Tr o t ma n v. Vel oci t ea ch P r o j ect Mg mt

. , 3 1 1 Ga. Ap p

. 20 8

, 2 1 5 (8 ) (7 1 5

SE2 d 4 4 9) (2 0 1 1).

In t h i s cas e, t h e reco rd s h o ws t h a t b e f o r e tri al Cai n s t ip u l at ed t hat h e was

d ri v i ng i n t h e wro n g d i rect i o n an d co l l i d ed h ead -o n in t o Mo rd ecai ’ s v eh icl e an d t h at

h e was n eg l i g en t i n cau s i n g t h e wreck

, t h at i s

, t hat h e o wed M o rd ecai a d u t y o f care

an d th at h e b reach ed t h at d u t y i n t h e m an n er al l eg ed

. Cai n m ov ed in li m i ne t o ex cl u d e

“ an y ev i d en ce as t o t h e t i m i n g o f [h i s ] ad m i s s i o n t h at h e cau s ed t he acci d en t

. ” Befo re

t ri al

, t h e tri al co urt g ran t ed t h e m o t i o n o n th e b as i s t hat

, becau s e Cai n h ad s t i p u l at ed

t h at h e o wed M o rd ecai a d ut y an d b reach ed t h at d u t y

, t h e t i m i n g o f h i s ad m i ss i o n was

i rrel ev an t

.

At t ri al

, M o rd ecai ’ s co u ns el as k ed Cai n wh et h er h e ack no wl ed g ed t hat h e h ad

cro s s ed t he cen t er l in e, an d Cai n res po n d ed t h at h e h ad n o reco l l ect io n o f t h e ev en t

.

9 See OCGA § 4 0 -6 -4 0

.

13M o rd ecai ’ s co u ns el as k ed t o ap p ro ach t h e b en ch

. Th e c o u r t h ad t h e ju ry rem o v ed

fro m t h e co u rt ro om an d t o l d Cai n ’ s co u n s el t h at ei th er Cai n co u l d ack n o wl ed g e b ei n g

at fau l t o r t h e co u rt wo u l d al lo w M o rd ecai to i n t ro d u ce ev i d en ce o f hi s g u il t y p l ea,

wh i ch h ad p rev i o u sl y b een ex cl ud ed

. Th e co urt t h e n a s k e d Cai n ’ s co u n s el i f h e

wan ted t o t al k wi t h Cai n

, an d co u n s el s ai d

, “ y es .” D efen s e co u n s el co n ferred wi t h h i s

cl i en t an d i n fo rm ed th e co u rt t h at Cai n un d ers t o o d t h at h i s t es t i m o n y was i n co n s i s t en t

wi t h t h e l eg al p o si t i on he h ad t ak en i n o b t ai ni n g t h e l i m i n e r u l in g

, t h at h e

ack n owl ed ged h i s f

a u l t

, a n d t h at h e wo u ld co rrect h i s t es t i m o n y wh en t h e t ri al

res u m ed

. Th e ju dg e em

p has ized t h at h e was n o t i n s t ru ct i n g Mo rd ecai ’ s co u n s el t o as k

an y p art i cu l ar q u es t io ns

. W h en t h e t ri al res u m e d

, C a i n recan t ed hi s i m m ed i at el y

p reced i n g t es t i m o n y t h at h e d i d n o t rem em b er t he acci d en t an d t es t ifi ed t h at h e d id

recal l cro s s i ng t h e cen t er l i n e.

M o rd ecai co n te n d s t h at ev i d en ce t h at Cai n ad m i tt ed g u i l t t o t h e o ffen s e o f

d ri v i ng o n t h e wro n g s id e o f t h e ro ad b y fo rfei t i n g h i s b o n d wo u l d h av e refu t ed h i s

t es t i m o ny t h at h e d id n o t recal l t h e acci d en t an d t h at

, wh en Cai n t es ti fi ed h e d i d n ot

recal l th e acci d en t

, “ [h i s ] t es t i m o ny ab ou t th e acci d en t b ecam e so co n fl i ct i n g t h at

[s h e] ren ewed [h er] req ues t t o p res en t ev i d en ce o f h is g u i l t y p l ea[.] ” M o rd ecai as s ert s

t h at t h e co u rt “ in st ru ct ed C a i n ’s a t t orn ey t o co u n s el h i s cl i en t t o ch an g e h i s

14t es t i m o ny ” o r th e co u rt w o u l d al l o w her to i n t ro d u ce ev i d en ce o f hi s g u i lt y p l ea. Sh e

arg u es t h at “ th e fai l u re t o al l o w ev i d e n c e o f s u ch ad m i s s io n ” d en ied h er “ t h e

o p p o rt u ni t y t o i m

p each [Ca i n ] o n t h i s i s s u e” an d “ den i ed [h er] a fu l l an d t h o ro u g h

cro s s ex am i n at i o n o f t h e ad v ers e p art y .”

W e co ncl u d e, h o wev er, t h at t h e t ri al co u rt was au t h o ri zed t o fi nd

, aft er Cai n

ad m i t t ed cro s s in g t h e cen t er l in e an d ret ract ed h i s t es t i m o n y th at h e d i d n o t rem em b er

d o i n g s o

, t h at i n t ro d uct i o n o f h i s b o n d fo rfei tu re wo u l d h av e b een cu m u l at i v e o f h i s

s t ip u l at i o n o f n eg l i gen ce an d o f h i s ad m i s s i o n i n ju d i ci o th at he n eg l ig en t l y d ro v e in

t h e wro n g d i rect io n an d cau s ed t h e co l li s io n

. Acco rd i n g l y

, th e t ri al co u rt d i d n ot

ab u se i t s di s cret io n i n ex cl u d i n g ev i d en ce o f h i s b o n d fo rfei t ure. Mi t ch el l v. G a y

, 1 1 1

Ga. Ap p

. 8 6 7

, 8 7 3 (6 ) (1 4 3 SE2 d 5 6 8 ) ( 1 9 6 5 ) ( “ T h ere is n o rev ers i b le erro r in

ex cl u d i n g ev id en ce o ffered t o p ro v e a fact wh i ch is ad m i t t ed o r fu l l y es t ab l i s h ed by

o t h er ev i d en ce.”) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ).

In ad d i t i o n

, M ord ecai ’ s as s ert i o n t h at t h e t ri al i m p ro p erl y “ di rect ed ” d efen s e

co u ns el t o i n s t ru ct Cai n to ch an g e h i s t ri al t es t i m on y i s n o t s u p po rt ed b y t h e reco rd

.

Th e reco r d s h o w s in st ead t h at t h e t ri al co u rt cau t i o n ed defen s e co u ns el t h at

, i f t h e

ev i d en t i ary b as is fo r t h e co urt ’ s l i m i n e ru l i n g ch an g ed

, th e t ri al co u rt wo u l d rev i s i t

t h at ru l i ng reg ard in g t h e ad m i ss i b i l i t y o f h i s b on d fo rfei t ure, as it h ad t h e p o w e r t o

15d o

. 1 0 W e fi n d n o erro r i n t h e g i v i ng o f t h i s cau ti o n o r i n g i v i n g d efen s e co u n s el t h e

o p p o rt u ni t y

t o s p eak wi t h h i s cl i en t b efo re p ro ceed i n g

. 1 1

Ju d g men t r ever

s ed

. Mer ci er

, J., co n cu r

s

. Br a n ch

, J., co n cu r

s i n ju d g men t o n l y

i n Di vi s i o n 1

, a n d

f u l l y i n Di vi s i o n 2

.

1 0 See Pau l S. M i l i ch

, Ga. Ru l es o f Ev i d en ce, § 3: 6 (d at ab as e u p d at ed Oct o b er

2 0 1 5 ) (“ Th e t ri al ju d g e m ay al way s reco n s i d er an d ch an g e a ru l i ng m ad e i n a p re-t ri al

h eari n g

. A s a t ri al p ro g res s es

, i t m ay rev eal ad d it i on al fact s o r rai s e n ew co n cern s t h at

were n o t v i s i b l e wh en t h e ju d g e r u l ed b efo re tri al

. Co u n s el s h ou l d as k t he co u rt to

reco n s i d er i t s i n i t ial ru l in g i n l i g h t o f t h e n ew fact o rs .”) (fo o t n o t e o m i t ted ); Ha r l eyDa vi d s o n Mo t or

Co

. v. Da n i el

, 2 4 4 Ga. 28 4

, 2 8 5 -2 86 (1 ) (2 6 0 SE2 d 2 0) (1 9 7 9 ) (A

ru l i n g o n a m o t i o n in l i m i ne co n t ro l s t h e s u bs eq u en t co u r s e o f t h e act i o n

, u n l es s

m o di fi ed at t ri al t o p rev en t m an i fes t i n ju s t i ce.); Th o ma s v. S t a t e

, 2 8 7 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 4,

1 2 4 -1 2 5 (6 5 0 SE2 d 7 9 3 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (A m o t i on i n l i m i n e ru l i n g is n o t a fi n al ju d g m en t

,

an d t he tri al co u rt can m o di fy i t s ru l i n g at t ri al .); Ja ko b s en v. Co l o ni a l Pi pel i n e Co

. , 2 3 7 Ga. Ap p

. 4 4 1

, 4 4 6 (3 ) (5 1 4 SE2 d 8 5 1 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (A tri al co u rt can m o d i fy a ru l i n g

o n a m o t i o n i n l i m in e d u ri n g t ri al .) (p h y s i cal p reced en t o n l y ).

1 1 See Tu r n er v. W

i l m o ut h

, 1 61 Ga. Ap p. 2

, 4 (4 ) (2 8 8 SE2 d 83 9 ) (1 9 8 2 ) (“ Th e

t ri al co urt h as th e ri g ht an d th e o b l i g at i on t o as k q u es t i on s

, res t ri ct ex am i nat i o n

, an d

o t h erwi s e co n tro l t he co u rs e o f t h e p ro ceed i ng s i n o rd er t o i n s u re t h e t ru t h i s g i v en

t o th e j u ry i n o rd erl y fas h i o n

. In t h e ab sen ce o f ab u s e, we wi l l n o t i n t erfere wi t h t h e

ex erci s e o f t h a t d i s c ret i o n .”) (ci t at i o n an d p un ct u at io n o m i t t ed ); see al s o Ca mp b el l

v. S t a t e , 2 4 8 Ga. Ap p . 1 6 2, 1 65 (2 ) (5 4 5 SE2 d 6 ) (2 0 0 1) (acco rd ).

16