FI FTH DI VI SI ON M CFA DDEN, P. J. GOBEI L and LA ND, 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 ll y 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

Januar y 16, 2024



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

A 22A 149 9. B RI XM OR N EW CH A STA I N CORN ERS SC, LLC v. J A M ES.

M C F A D D E N , Presid ing J u d ge.
I n Bri x mo r N ew C ha sta i n C orn ers S C , LLC v . Ja mes , 36 7 Ga. A p p . 235 (884
SE2d 39 3) (2023), w e af firmed the trial c o u rt’ s d enial o f B rixmo r’ s m o t i o n f o r

su mmary j ud gment in A rlene J ames’ s p remises liability ac tio n. I d

. at 236

- 239 (2). We

v ac ated the trial c o u rt’ s ru ling o n sp o liatio n, ho ld ing that the trial c o u r t a p p lied an
inc o rrec t legal stand ard in granting James’ s mo tio n fo r sp o liatio n sanc tio ns. I d

. a t 239

-
241 ( 3). W e also rej ec ted B rixmo r’ s argu m ent that “ the trial c o u rt erred by f ailing to

ap p ly the su bsequ ent r emed ia l m e a s u re ru le to [the s p o liatio n] a nalysis. ” I d. at 240 (3).I n Bri x mo r N ew Cha s ta i

n C o rn ers S C, L

LC v . Ja mes ,

_ _ Ga.

_ _ (_

_ SE2d

_ _ ) (Case No

. S23G07 9 5, d ec id ed D ec . 1 9 , 2023), o u r Su preme Co urt held that o nc e w e
had “ c o nc lu d ed that the trial c o u rt ap p lied the inc orrec t stand ard o n sp o liatio n and
remand ed the c ase to the trial c o u rt to a p p ly the c o rrec t sp oliatio n stand ard ,

c o nsid eratio n o f

the remed ial measu re r u le w as u nnec e ssary to the reso lu t io n o f the
issu es o n ap p eal and [o u r] d eterminatio n o n the issu e was thu s d ic t a . ” I d

. at

_ _ . So
the c o u rt v ac ated D iv isio n 3 o f o u r o p inio n “ to the extent that it p u r p o r t s t o mak e

su c h a legal d eterminatio n,” no ting that there is an “ o p en and d if f ic ult legal qu estio n

u nd er Geo rgia law r egard ing w hat c onsid eratio n, if any, mu s t be giv en t o t h e

su bsequ ent remed ial measu res ru le in ad d ressing the issu e o f sp o liatio n. ” I d

. The f o llo w ing p aragrap h i n D i v i sio n 3 o f o ur o p inio n is t he ho ld ing that the
Su p reme Co u rt has v ac ated :
B r ixmo r argu e s that the trial c o u rt erred by f ailing t o a p p l y t h e
su bsequ e nt r emed ial measu re ru le to its analysis. T hat ru le, f o u nd at OCGA § 24- 4- 407 , generally p ro hibits the ad missio n i n ci v i l p r o ce e d i ngs
o f ev id enc e o f remed ial measu res tak en to mak e a n i n j u r y o r harm less lik ely to rec u r. B rixmo r c ites no au tho r ity — and w e hav e f o u nd no ne
— to su p p o rt its argu ment that the trial c ou rt w as requ ired to c onsid er the d o c trine o f su b sequ ent remed ial measu res, a sp ec if ic ev id e n t i ary

2exc lu si o n a r y ru le, when ru ling o n sp oliatio n. So it has no t sho w n a n

abu se o f d isc retio n in this regard

.

36 7 Ga. A p p . at 240 (3).
B e c au se the Su p reme Co u rt d id no t ad d ress o ur d isp o siti v e ho ld ings — that the
trial co urt d id no t err in d enying B rixmo r’ s mo tio n f o r s u m m a ry j u d gment and that
the trial c o u rt ap p l i e d a n inc o r rec t legal stand ard in ru ling o n J ames’ s mo tio n f o r
sp o liatio n sanc tio ns — and bec au se tho s e ho ld ings are c o nsistent w ith the Su p reme
Co u rt’ s o p inio n, tho se ho ld ings bec o me bind ing u p o n t he retu rn o f the remittitu r.
Jo rda n v . E v ers o n , 345 Ga. A p p . 509 , 51 0 (81 3 SE2d 6 00) (201 8).
Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed i n p a rt, v aca ted i

n pa rt, an d ca s e r

e ma n d e d wi th di recti o n.
Go b e i l a nd La n d, JJ. , c

o n cu r .

3