FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, RA Y and RI CKM A N, 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

Septem ber 19, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A0 86 6 . CALLAW AY v . QUINN.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e.

Th i s ap p eal co ncern s t wo ru l i n g s i n a p ers o n al i n j u ry act i on ari s in g fro m a hi t

an d -ru n acci d en t b et ween a v eh i cl e d ri v en b y p l a i n t i f f Ch i k en a L. Cal l away an d a

v eh i cl e o wn ed b y d efen d an t M i ch ael J. Qu i n n

. Th e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed s u m m ar y

ju d g m en t t o Qu i nn o n t h e gro u n d t h at Cal l away h ad p oi n t ed t o n o e v i d en ce t h at

Qu i n n w a s d ri v in g t he v eh i cl e at t h e t i m e of t h e acci d en t

. W e fi n d

, ho wev er, t h at

ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce creat ed a g en u i n e i s s u e o f m at eri al fact as t o w h et h er Qu i n n

was th e d ri v er, s o w e rev ers e t h e s u m m ary ju d g m en t

. Th e t ri al co u rt al s o d en i ed

C a l l a w a y’ s req u es t to ad d an u n k n o w n dri v er, al l eg ed by Qu i n n

, as a J o h n Do e

d efen d an t

. In s o ru l in g, t h e t ri al co u rt d o es n o t ap p ear t o h av e d et erm i n ed wh et h er t h e

cl ai m ag ai n s t t h e J o h n Do e defen d an t rel at ed b ack t o Cal laway ’ s o ri g i n al co m p l ai n t

,wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt w as req u i red t o det erm i n e becau s e t h e s t at u t e o f l i m i t at i o n h ad

ex p ired

. W e t h erefo re vacat e t h e ru l i n g d en y in g Cal laway ’ s req u es t t o ad d t h e J o h n

Do e defen d an t an d rem an d t h e cas e fo r fu rt her p ro ceed i ng s n o t i n co n s i st en t wi t h t h i s

o p i n i o n

.

1

. Mo t i o n f

or s u m ma r y j u d g men t

.

Su m m ary ju d g m en t i s a p p ro p ri at e “ i f th e pl ead i n gs

, d ep o s i t i o n s

, an s wers to

i n t erro g at o ri es

, an d ad m is s i o n s o n fi l e, t o g et her wi th t h e affi d av i ts

, i f an y

, s h o w t h at

t h ere i s n o g en u i n e i s s u e o f m at eri al fact a n d t h a t t he m o v in g p art y i s en t it l ed t o a

ju d g m en t as a m at t er o f l aw.” OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (c). “ W e rev iew a gran t o f s u m m ary

ju d g m en t d e n o v o, co n s t ru i n g t h e ev i d en ce i n th e li g h t m os t fav o rab l e t o t h e

n o n m o v an t [ ] an d d rawi n g ev ery reas on ab l e i n feren ce i n [h e r] fav or.” P a t t er s o n v.

Kevo n

, LLC

,

_

_ Ga.

_ _ ,

_ _ (_

_ SE2 d

__ ) (Cas e No

. S 1 7 G 1 9 5 7

, d e ci d ed Au g

. 2 0,

2 0 1 8 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t ted ).

W e n o te t h at t h e reco rd co n t ai ns s o m e h ears ay ev i d en ce, t o wh i ch Qu i n n d id

n o t o b ject

. W e m ay co n s i d er t h at ev i den ce i n r e v i e w i ng t h e s u m m ary ju d g m en t

b ecau s e Qu i nn d i d n o t o b ject t o i t i n t h e s um m ary

ju d g m en t p ro ceed i n g s. See i d . at

_ _ n

. 3 ( c o n s i d eri n g h ears ay d ep o si t i o n t es ti m o n y in ru l i n g t h at defen d an t was n ot

en t i t l ed to su m

m ary j u d gm en t ; al t h o u g h p art i es h ad res erv ed o b ject i o n s ex cep t as to

2t h e fo rm o f t h e q u es t io n an d t h e res p o ns i v en es s o f th e an s wer du ri n g d ep os i t i o n

, t h e

d efen d an t h a d n o t o b

j ect ed t o t h e u s e o f th e h ears ay i n t h e s u b s eq u en t s u m m ary

ju d g m en t p ro ceed i n g s b efo re t h e t ri al co u rt ). See al s o OCGA § 2 4-8 -8 0 2 (“ i f a p art y

d o es n o t p ro p erl y o b

ject t o h ears ay

, t h e o b

ject io n s ha l l b e d eem ed w ai v ed

, an d t h e

h ears ay ev i d en ce s h al l b e l eg al ev i d en ce an d ad m i s s i b l e”).

So co n s t ru ed

, t h e ev i d en ce s h o wed t h at o n M ay 22

, 2 0 1 5

, C a l l a w a y was

s t op p ed i n t raffi c wh en s h e was rear-en d ed b y a m an d r i v i n g a pi ck u p t ru ck o wn ed

b y Qu i n n

. Sh e was i n

ju red i n t h e acci d en t

. Th e d ri v er o f t he t ru ck fl ed t h e s cen e, an d

t h e t ru ck was l at er fo u n d

, ab an d o ned

, i n t h e p ark i n g l o t o f a b u si n es s

. A wr eck er

s erv i ce i m

po u n d ed t he t ru ck

.

Th e l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer i n v es t i g at i n g t h e acci d en t t ri ed u ns u cces s fu l l y to

co n tact Qu i n n ab o u t it ; h e wen t t o Qu i n n ’ s h o u s e, bu t n o o n e wo u l d an s wer t h e d o o r

al t h o u g h i t ap p eared th at s o m eo n e was in s i d e. T h e wreck er s erv i ce i n fo rm ed Qu i n n

t h at h e h ad t o co n t act l aw en fo rcem en t t o h av e t h e t ru ck rel eas ed t o hi m

, b u t Qu i n n

d ecl i ned t o d o s o

, a n d h e n ev er ret ri ev ed t h e t ru ck fro m th e wreck er s erv i ce ev en

t h o u g h i t co n t ai n ed so m e of h i s p ers o n al bel o n g i n gs

. Bas ed o n Qu i n n ’ s b eh av i o r, t h e

i n v es t i g at i n g o ffi cer b el i ev ed t h at Qu i n n was dri v i n g t h e t ru ck w h e n i t s t ru ck

Cal l away ’ s car.

3Qu i n n

, ho wev er, den i ed d ri v i n g t h e t ru ck at t he t i m e o f t h e acci d en t

. In h i s

d ep os i t i o n

, h e t es t i fi ed t h at t h e t ru ck was a “ fi x er-u p per” t h at “ b arel y ran ,” wh i ch h e

k ep t park ed n ear h i s h o u s e o n h i s 3 / 4 -acre p ro p ert y an d o n ly d ro ve a few t i m es a y ear.

Nev ert h el es s

, Q u i nn m ai n t ai n ed i n su ran ce an d a cu rren t t ag o n t h e t ru ck an d k ep t t h e

k ey s t o t h e t ru ck l y i n g “ o n a t ab l e al l t h e t i m e” i n th e h o u s e h e s h ared wi t h h i s wi fe.

Qu i nn t es t i fi ed t h at h e fi rs t real i zed t h e t ru ck was m i ss i n g wh en he g o t a cal l fro m t h e

wreck er s erv i ce i n Ju n e, s ev eral week s aft er t h e acci den t

. H e n ev er rep ort ed th e t ru ck

as s t o l en

.

In h i s d ep os i ti o n

, Qu i n n s u g g es t ed t h at a m an wh o s t ay ed at h is ho u se fo r a few

d ay s i n 2 0 1 5 t o o k t he t ru ck an d cras h ed i t in t o Cal l away ’ s car. He s tat ed t h at t h i s m an

— w h o w as t h e fo rm er b o y fri en d o f Qu i n n ’ s wi fe’ s si s t er

— “ d is ap p eared ” aro u n d

t h e t i m e o f t h e acci d en t

. Bu t Qu i n n d i d n o t k n ow wh et her or no t t h i s d i s ap p earan ce

o ccu rred o n t h e act u al d ay o f t he acci d en t

, an d h e co n c e d e d t h at h i s b el i ef t h at t h i s

m an t o o k t h e t ru ck was m ere s p ecu l at i o n

. Qu in n di d n o t k no w h o w t o co nt act ei t h er

t h i s m an o r Qu i nn ’ s wi fe’ s s i s ter (t h e m an ’ s fo rm er g i rl fri en d ).

Cal l away arg ues o n ap p eal t h at t h e ev i d en ce, v i ewed i n h er fav o r, s u p p o rt s an

i n feren ce t h at Qu i n n was th e m an d ri v i n g t h e t ru ck at th e t i m e o f t h e acci d en t

. Qu i n n

4r e s p o n d s t h at h i s d en i al t hat h e was d ri v in g i s d i rect ev id en ce ren d er i n g a n y

co n fl i ct i n g ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce n o n p ro b at i v e.

Ou r Su p rem e Co u rt recen t l y d i s cu s s ed t h e ru l es g o v ern in g ci rcu m s t an t i al an d

d i rect ev i d en ce on s u m

m ary ju d g m en t i n Pa t t er

s o n v. Kevo n

, LLC

, su p ra,

_ _ Ga.

_ _,

ex p lai n i n g t h at

[c] i rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce can b e d es cri b ed as ev id en ce wh i ch d oes n o t

co n s t i t ut e d i rect p ro o f wi t h reg ard t o t h e i s su e o f fact o r t h e h y po t h es i s

s o u g h t t o b e p ro v en b y t h e ev i d e n c e ; r at h er, ci rcu m s t an ti al ev i d en ce

co n s t i t ut es pro of o f o t her fact s co n s i s t en t wi t h t h e h y p o t h es i s cl ai m ed

.

Gen eral ly

, in p as s i n g u p o n a m ot i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, a fi n d i n g

o f fact wh i ch m a y b e i n ferred b u t i s n o t d em an d ed b y ci rcu m s tan t i al

ev i d en ce h as no p ro b at i v e v al u e ag ai n st p o s i t i v e an d u n co nt r ad i ct ed

ev i d en ce t h at n o s u ch fact ex i s t s

. Bu t t hi s ru le i s s u b ject to an i m

p o rt an t

q u al ifi cat i o n : In n ei t h er cri m i n al no r ci v i l c a s e s i s i t req u i red t hat th e

p ro v ed ci rcu m s t an ces s h al l s h ow co n si s t en cy wi t h t h e h y po t h es i s

cl ai m ed an d i n co n si s t en cy wi t h al l ot h er reas on ab l e t h eo ri es t o t he p o i n t

o f l o g i cal d em o ns t rat i on

. Ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce, t herefo re, m ay be

s u ffi ci en t fo r a p l ai n ti ff’ s cl ai m t o s u rv i v e s u m

m ary ju d g m en t, i f o t h er

t h eo ri es are sh o w n to b e l es s p r o b a b le

. Th ere i s n o req ui rem en t t hat

o t h er th eo ri es b e co n cl u si v el y ex cl u d ed

. . . . In t h o s e ci rcu m s t an ces

, th e

q u e s t i o n as t o t he s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce, an d i t s

co n s i s t en cy o r i n co n si s t en cy wi t h al t ern at i ve h y p o t h es es

, i s a q u es t i o n

fo r t h e ju ry

. An d i n t he co n t ex t o f a ci v i l ju ry t ri al

, al l o t h er reas o n ab l e

t h eo ri es are ex c l u d ed wh en p ro v ed ci rcu m s t an ces o f real an d act ual

5p ro b at i v e v a l u e cau s e t h e ju ry t o fi nd th at t he p rep on d eran ce of th e

ev i d en ce is i n fav o r o f t h e h y p o t hes i s cl ai m ed

, a s a g a i n s t al l o t h er

reas o n ab l e b u t l es s p ro b ab l e t h eo ri es

.

I d

. a t

_ _ (ci tat i o n s an d pu n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ; em ph as is i n o ri gi n al ). W e s t at ed t h i s

p ri n ci p l e an o t h er way in R o s a l es v. Da vi s

, 2 6 0 Ga. Ap p. 70 9

, 7 1 2 (2 ) (5 8 0 SE2 d 6 6 2 )

(2 0 0 3), a h i t -an d-ru n cas e. Li k e o u r Su p rem e Co u rt i n Pa t t er s o n

, we co n tem

p l at ed

i n R o s a l es t he p o s si b il i ty t h a t c i rcu m s tan t i al ev i d en ce s o m et i m es co u l d h av e

p ro b at i v e v al u e i n t h e face o f co n t rary d irect ev i d en ce, s tat i n g t h at

[b ] efo re ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i den ce can h av e an y p ro b at i v e val u e t o reb u t

o r co n t rad i ct d i rect an d p o s i t i v e t es t i m o ny o f an u n i m

p each ed wi t n es s

o f t h e al leg ed fact s in qu es t i o n

, s u ch ev i den ce m u s t p o i n t at l eas t m o re

s t ro n g l y t o a co n cl u s i o n o p p o s i t e t o t h e d i rect tes t i m on y

. It i s n o t

s u ffi ci en t t ha t s u ch ci rcu m s tan t i al ev i d en ce p o i n t s eq u al l y on e w ay o r

t h e o t her.

Ro s al es

, s u p ra at 7 1 2 (2 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t ted ).

Ap p ly i n g t h e ru l es s et fo rt h i n Pa t t er so n an d Ro s a l es t o t h e ev i d en ce i n t h i s

cas e, w e fi nd t h at t h e ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce p o in t s m o re s t r o n g ly t o

— o r m ak es

m o re p ro b ab l e — t h e co n cl us i on t h at Qu i n n

, rat h er t h an s o m eo n e el s e, was d ri v i n g

Qu i nn ’ s t ru ck wh en i t s t ru ck Cal l away ’ s car. Th at ev i d en ce, v i ewed m o s t fav o rab l y

t o Cal l away

, s h o wed t h at Qu i n n o wn ed t h e t ru ck ; Qu i nn was th e s am e gen d er as t h e

6p ers o n s een d ri v i ng t h e t ru ck ; Qu i n n n ev er rep ort ed t h e t ru ck m i s s i n g ; Qu i n n d i d n ot

k n o w wh en or h o w t h e t ru ck al l eg ed l y d i s ap peared fro m

h i s h o u s e; Qu i n n d ecl i n ed

t o r e t ri ev e t h e t ru ck fro m th e wreck i n g co m p an y aft er l earn i n g t h at h e n eed ed t o

co n tact l aw en fo rcem en t t o d o s o ; an d t h e in v es ti g at i ng o ffi cer b el i ev ed t h at Qu i n n

was t h e d ri v er. M oreo v er, Q u i nn c o n ced ed t h at h i s al t ern at i v e h y p o t h es i s

— t h at a

m an wh o b ri efl y

s t ay ed i n h i s h o u s e t oo k t he t ru ck

— was m ere s p ecu l at i o n

.

Co n seq u en t l y

, t h e ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce t h at Qu i n n was th e h i t -an d -ru n

d ri v er h ad “ p ro b at i v e v al u e t o reb u t o r co n t rad i ct ” Q u i n n ’ s d en i al

. Ro s al es

, s u p ra at

7 1 2 (2 ). Th e “ s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ci rcu m s t a n t i a l ev i den ce, an d i ts co n si st en cy o r

i n co n s i s t en cy wi t h [Qu i n n ’ s ] al t ern at i v e h y p o t h es i s [t h at s o m eo n e el s e d ro v e t h e

t ru ck ]

, is a q u es ti o n fo r t h e ju ry .” Pa t t er s o n

, _

_ Ga. at

_ _ (ci t at i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ). Th e t ri al co u rt erred i n g ran ti n g s u m m ary ju d gm en t t o Qu i n n

.

2

. Mo t i o n t o a d

d Jo h n Do e d

ef en d a n t.

On Au g u s t 9, 2 0 1 7

, Cal l away m o v ed u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 1 -2 0 (co n cern i n g

p erm i s s i v e jo i nd er o f p art i es ) an d OCGA § 9 -1 1 -2 1 ( c o ncern i n g m i s j o i n d er an d

n o n jo i n d er o f p art i es ) t o ad d t h e al l eg ed u n k n o w n d ri v er as a J o h n Do e d efen d an t to

h e r l aws u i t. Un d er OCGA § 33 -7 -1 1 (d ), a p l ai n t i ff m ay b ri n g an act io n ag ai n s t an

u n k n o wn v eh i cl e op erat o r as J o h n Do e an d s erv e th e i s s uer o f an

7u n i n s u red / u n d eri n s u red m o t o ri s t (UM ) i n s u ran ce po l i cy wi t h t h at act i o n, an d t h e UM

carri er m ay t ak e act i on i n t h at p ro ceed i n g i n t h e n am e o f J o h n Do e. Th e UM carri er

i n t h i s cas e, USAA Cas u al t y In s u ran ce Co m p an y

, o b j ect ed t o Cal l away ’ s req u es t to

ad d th e J o h n Do e defen d an t, arg u i n g t h at t h e ap p l i cab l e t wo -y ear s t at u t e o f l i m i t at i o n

h ad ex p i red

. See OCG A § 9

- 3 -3 3 (es t ab l i s h in g t w o -y ear st at ut e o f l i m i t at i o n fo r

p ers o n al i n

ju ry act i o n s). Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed Cal laway ’ s req u es t t o ad d t h e J o h n

Do e d efen d an t , s t at i n g :

Th ere i s n o reas o n p r e s e n t ed b y [Cal l away ]

— n on e

— p ro v i d i n g an y

ex p l i c a t io n fo r th e d el ay i n ad d i n g an ad d i t io n al J o h n D o e d efen d an t

.

[Cal laway ] p res en t ed no s u p p o rt as t o wh y t h e s tat u t e o f l i m i t at i o n s

s h o u l d h av e b een t o l l ed fo r a J oh n Do e d efen d an t wh en s h e was aware

o f t h e ex i s t en ce o f an ad d i t i on al part y [t h e al l eg ed u n k no wn d r i v e r o f

Qu i n n ’ s t ru ck ] at leas t s i x m o n th s p ri o r to th e e x pi rat i on o f th e st at ut e

o f l i m i t at i o n s es p eci al l y co n s i d eri ng t h e fi li n g b y [t h e] UM carri er

ch al len gi ng h er [m ] o ti o n t o ad d t he J ohn Do e d efen d an t

. Perm i t t i n g s u ch

a jo i n d er wo u l d p reju d i ce a d efen d an t

.

A t ri al co u rt m ay ad d p art i es t o an act i o n u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 1 -2 1

. W h et h er to

d o s o i s a m at t er fo r t h e tri al co u rt ’ s d i s cret i o n

. Ro g er s v. Deu t s ch e B a n k Na t

. Tr u s t

Co

. , 34 3 Ga. Ap p

. 6 5 5

, 65 8 -6 5 9 (2 ) (b ) (8 0 8 SE2 d 23 3 ) (2 01 7 ). W h ere, as h ere, t h e

p art y wo u l d b e “ ad d ed aft er th e ru n n i n g of t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t at i o n

, i t m u s t b e

8d et erm i n ed wh et h er u n der OCGA § 9 -1 1

- 1 5 (c) t he cl ai m ag ai n s t t he n ew p art y

r e l a t e s b a c k t o t h e d at e of t h e o ri g i n al p l ead i n g .” Dea n v. Hu n t

, 2 7 3 Ga. Ap p

. 5 5 2

(6 1 5 SE2 d 6 2 0 ) (2 0 0 5 ). See Ut i ca Mu t

. In s . Co . v. Ch as en , 1 9 5 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 5

, 8 7 6

-

8 7 8 (3 9 5 SE2 d 4 0) (1 9 90 ) (ap p l y i n g OCGA § 9 -1 1 -1 5 (c) rel at i o n -b ack an al y s i s

wh ere p l ai n t i ff s ou g h t t o ad d J o h n Do e d efen d a n t a ft er ru n n i n g o f s t at u t e o f

l i m i tat i on ). Del ay can n o t b e t h e s o l e reas o n fo r a t ri al co u rt to den y jo i nd er, W es t er n

S ky Fi na n ci al v. S t at e o

f Ga

. , 30 0 Ga. 3 4 0

, 3 58 (3 ) (a) (7 9 3 SE2 d 3 5 7 ) (2 01 6 ), an d

“ wh en a p l ai n t i ff can s at i s fy t h e s t at u t ory req u i rem en t s fo r rel at i o n b ack o f an

am en d m en t

, s et o ut i n O CGA § 9 -1 1 -1 5 (c), d en y i n g a m ot io n fo r l eav e t o am en d t h e

co m p l ai n t t o ad d a d efen d an t i s an ab u se o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d i s cret i o n .” Ra s h eed v.

Kl o pp En t er p r i s es

, 2 76 Ga. A p p. 9 1

, 9 2 (1 ) (6 2 2 SE2 d 4 4 2 ) (2 0 0 5 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

It ap p ears t h at t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t m ak e a rel at i on -b ack d et erm i n at i o n u n d er

OCGA § 9 -1 1 -1 5 (c) i n ru l i n g o n Cal l away ’ s req u es t t o ad d t h e J oh n Do e d efen d an t

.

To rel at e b ack

, OCGA § 9 -1 1 -1 5 (c) req u ires b o t h t h at t h e cl ai m ag ai n s t a n ew p art y

“ ari s e o u t o f t h e co n d u ct

, t ran s act i o n

, o r o ccu rren ce s et fo rt h

. . . i n t he o ri g i n al

p l ead i n g ” an d t h at t h e n ew p art y

, wi t h i n t he rel ev a n t l i m i t at i o n peri o d, “ (1 ) h as

recei v ed s u ch n o t ice o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f t he act i o n t h at h e wi l l n o t b e p reju d i ced in

m ai n t ai n i n g h i s d efen se o n t h e m eri t s

, an d (2 ) k n ew or s h o u l d h av e k n o wn t h at

, b ut

9fo r a m i s t ak e co ncern i n g t he i d en t i t y o f th e p ro p er p art y

, t he act i o n wo u l d h av e b een

b ro u gh t ag ai n st h i m

. ” See Ro bi n s o n v. Es t a t e o f Jes t er

, 3 33 Ga. Ap p

. 4 1

, 4 3 (7 7 5

SE2 d 5 6 9 ) (2 01 5 ). Th e p l ai n t i ff h as t h e b u rd en o f p ers u as i o n on t h es e i s s u es

, b u t t h e

“ p ro p o s ed new d efen d an t h as t h e i n i t i al bu rd en [o f p ro d uct i o n ] t o sh o w t h at OCGA

§ 9 -1 1 -1 5 (c) i s i n ap p l i cab l e, fo l l o wi n g wh i ch t h e bu rd en [o f p ro d uct i o n ] s h i ft s b ack

t o t h e p lai n t i ff t o s h o w t hat O CGA § 9 -1 1 -1 5 (c) ap p l icab l e.” Dea n

, 2 7 3 Ga. Ap p

. at

5 5 3 & n

. 1 (ci tat i o n s om it t ed ). Th e rat i o n al e g i v en b y t h e t ri a l c o u r t i n h er o rd er,

h o wev er, ad d res s ed n ei t h er t h e s t at u t o ry cri t eri a fo r rel at in g b ack n o r t h e bu rd en s o f

p ro d uct i o n an d p ers u as i o n at p l ay i n d et erm i n in g i f t ho s e cri t eri a h av e b een m et

.

Co n seq u en t l y

, we m

u s t v acat e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f Cal l away ’ s req u es t to

ad d t h e J oh n Do e d efen d an t an d rem a n d t h i s c a s e fo r t h e t ri al co u rt t o co ns i d er t h e

ap p li cat io n o f OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 1 5 (c) t o Cal l away ’ s req ues t

. See Ben ed ek v. Bd

. of

Reg en t s o f t he Un i v

. S

ys t em o f Ga

. , 3 3 2 Ga. Ap p. 5 73

, 5 7 5 (1 ) (b ) (7 7 4 SE2 d 1 5 0 )

(2 0 1 5).

Ju d g men t r ever

s ed i n p a r t a n d va ca t ed i n p a rt , a n d ca s e r ema nd

ed

. Ra y a n d

Ri ckma n , JJ., co n cu r

.

10