FOURTH D I VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, RA Y and M CM I LLI 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

Nov em ber 18, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 5 A1 36 5

. AGIC et al

. v

. M ETRO P OLITAN ATLANTA RAPID

TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al

.

R A Y , J u d g e.

Ab ed i n a A g i c an d h er p aren t s

, M eh m ed an d Al m a Ag i c, (t he “ p lai n t i ffs ”), fi l ed

a co m pl ai n t fo r dam ag es ag ai n s t M et ro p o l i t an At l an ta Rap i d Tran s i t Au t h o ri t y

(“ M ARTA”) an d o ne o f i t s bu s d ri vers

, No l an Dav is

, fo r i n ju ri es th at Ab ed i n a Ag i c

(“ Ag i c”) s u s t ai n ed i n a m o t o r v eh i cl e co l l i s i o n i n v o l vi n g a M ARTA bu s

. 1 Fo l l o wi n g

a tri al

, t he ju ry ret urn ed a v erd i ct i n fav o r o f M ARTA an d Dav i s, wh ich was m ad e t h e

fi nal ju d g m en t o f t h e t ri al co u rt

. Th e p lai n t iffs ap peal fro m t h e v erd i ct an d ju d g m en t

,

co n ten d in g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n ex cl u d in g ev i d en ce reg ard i n g a t raffi c ci t at i o n

1 Kat y Co l e was t h e d ri v er o f o n e o f t h e o t h er v eh i cl es in v ol v ed i n t h e co l l i s i o n

an d was n am ed as an ad di t i o n al d efen d a n t

, b u t s h e was v o lu n t ari l y d i s m i s s ed fro m

t h e act i o n p ri o r t o t ri al . Co l e i s n o t a p art y t o t h i s ap p eal

.t h at h ad been is s u ed t o Dav i s i n co n ju n ct i o n wi t h t h e acci d en t

. Fo r t h e reas o n s t h at

fo l l o w , we rev ers e.

Al t h ou g h cert ai n as p ect s o f th e acci d en t were co nt es t ed

, i t was u n d i s p u t ed t h at

t h e acci d en t s t art ed w i t h a co l li si o n b et ween a M ARTA b u s d ri v en b y Dav i s an d a car

d ri v en b y Kat y Co l e, an d t h at t h e co l l i s i o n occu rred wh i l e D av i s was at t em p t i n g t o

ch an ge l an es o n No rt h Dru i d Hi l l s Ro ad

. Fo ll o wi n g t h i s in i ti al co l l i s i o n

, Co l e’ s car

t rav el ed acro s s th e ro ad way i n t o t h e l an es o f o n co m i n g t raffi c, wh ere i t was s t ru ck by

a s p o rt -u t i l i ty v eh i cl e d ri v en b y J u s t i n Hawk i n s

. A g i c, wh o was a p as s en g er in

Hawk i n s ’ SUV, was s eri o us l y i n ju red i n t he acci d en t

.

Aft er t h e wreck

, t h e p o l i ce i n i t i al ly t o l d Dav i s t h at h e was “ cl ear to g o

. ” Sh o rt l y

aft e r l eav i ng

, h o wev er, Dav i s was d i rect ed t o ret u rn t o t h e s cen e o f t he acci d en t

,

wh er e t h e p o l i ce i s s u ed h i m a ci t at i o n fo r i m p ro p er l an e ch an ge. Th e ci t at i o n

i n d i cat es o n i t s face t h at t h e i m p ro p er lan e ch an g e was i n vo l v e d i n t h e acci d en t

. 2

Dav is u l ti m at el y p ai d t h e c i t a t i o n o nl i n e wi t h o u t ap p eari ng i n t raffi c co urt

, wh i ch

2 M ARTA an d Dav is arg u e i n t h ei r ap p el l at e b ri ef t h at t h e p l ai n ti ffs fai l ed t o

m ak e a p ro ffer o f th e ci t at i o n t o t h e tri al co u rt an d, t h u s

, t h at t h e ci t at i o n i s n ot

p ro p erl y in t h e reco rd fo r t h e p u rp os es o f ap p el l at e rev i ew. Ho wev er, as n o ted b y t h e

t ri al co u rt , a co p y

o f t h e ci t at i o n was d u l y

fi l ed i n t h e reco rd b el o w.

2res u l ted i n a b o n d fo rfei t u re. 3 Fu rt h erm o re, aft er an in t ern al i n v es t i gat i o n by

M ARTA, Dav is s i g n ed a rep o rt ack n o wl ed g in g t h at th e acci d en t was “ p rev en t ab l e.”

W i th i n M ARTA, t h i s m ean t t h at Dav is w as at fau l t o r r e s p o n s ib l e fo r th e acci d en t

.

Pri o r t o tri al

, MARTA an d Dav i s fi l ed a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e t o ex cl u d e an y

referen ce t o t h e ci tat i o n t h at h ad b een i s s u ed t o Dav i s i n co n n ect i o n wi t h th e acci d en t

,

i n cl u d i n g t he fact t h at h e h ad pai d t h e fi ne fo r t h e ci t at i o n

. Th e t ri al co u rt gran t ed t h e

m o ti o n wi t h o u t s t at i n g i t s fi n d i n g s

.

At t ri al

, Dav i s ’ t es t i m on y reg ard i n g h i s act i on s an d t h e ci rcu m s t a n c e s o f t h e

acci den t d i ffered fro m o t h er wi t n es s t es t i m o n y

. An ey ewi t n es s t o t he acci d en t

t es t i fi ed t h at Dav i s act iv at ed hi s t u rn s i gn al “ fo r li k e h al f a s eco n d ” an d i m m ed i at el y

m erg ed in t o t he ri gh t lan e o f t raffi c “ [w] i t ho u t l o o k i n g o r an y t h i n g [.] ” Th e ey ewi t n es s

fu rt her t es t i fi ed t h at Co l e’ s car had b een t rav el i n g i n t h e ri g h t l an e at t h e ti m e an d t h at

3 Al t h o u g h M ARTA an d Dav i s arg u e i n t h ei r ap p el l at e bri ef t h at t h ere was n o

ev i d en ce i n t h e reco rd t o sh o w t h at Dav i s d i d n o t ap p ear i n t raffi c co urt

, we n o t e t h at

d efen s e co u n s el p res en t ed arg u m en t t o t h e t ri al c o u rt o n th e m o ti o n i n l i m i n e t h at

Dav is un d ers t o o d “ th at h e p ai d a fi ne an d d id no t h av e t o ap p ear [i n t raffi c co u rt ] ,”

b u t t hat h e d i d n o t rea l i ze t h at h i s p ay m en t of t h e fi n e an d fai l u re t o ap p ear wo u ld

res u l t i n a b o n d fo rfei t u re. T h u s

, co un s el i m p l i ci t l y ad m i t te d t h at Dav is fai l ed to

ap p ear i n t r a f

f i c c o u rt an d t hat Dav i s fo rfei ted h is b on d

. See 9 7 6 6

, LLC v. Dwa r

f

Ho u s e, In c.

, 33 1 Ga. Ap p

. 2 87

, 2 9 1 (4 ) (a) (7 7 1 SE2 d 1) (2 0 1 5 ) ( “ [ a ]d m i ss i o n s o f

fact

, m ad e b y a p art y ’ s co u n s el d u ri n g a h eari n g o r t ri al

, are reg ard ed as ad m i s s i on s

i n ju d i ci o an d are b i nd in g o n t h e p art y ”) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i on o m i tt ed ).

3t h e fro n t o f Dav is ’ M ARTA b us co l l i d ed wi t h Co l e’ s car, cau s i n g i t t o s p i n i n fro nt

o f t h e bu s an d veer acro s s t h e ro ad way i n t o on co m i ng t raffi c, wh ere i t w as s t ru ck by

Hawk i n s ’ SUV. Dav i s

, h o w ev er, t es t i fi ed th at h e act iv at ed h i s t u rn s i g n al an d l o o k ed

i n h i s m i rro r t w ice t o co n fi rm t h at t h e ri g h t l an e was cl ear b efo re h e at t em p t ed to

ch an ge l an es

. He fu rt h er t es t i fi ed t h at h e fel t a “ b u m p ” in t he r ea r o f h i s v eh i cl e, b ut

t h at h e d i d n o t k no w wh at i t was

. He t hen t es t i fi ed th at he lo o k ed in h i s m i rro r ag ai n

an d o b serv ed Co l e’ s car beh i n d h i s b u s m ak i n g a t u rn i n t o t h e p a t h o f o n co m i n g

t raffi c, wh ere i t was s t ru ck b y Hawk i n s ’ SUV.

To b o ls t er h i s v ers i o n o f ev en t s

, Dav i s t es ti fi ed t h at t h e p o l ice o ffi cer t o l d h i m

d u ri n g t h e acci d en t i nv es t ig at i o n t h at h e w as “ cl ear t o go .” He ev en t es t i fi ed t h at h e

as k ed t h e p o li ce o ffi cer if i t was g o o d i d ea t o l eav e b ecau s e “ I d i d n ’ t k n o w wh et h er

I was i n vo l v ed o r n o t [,] ” an d t h at t h e o ffi cer “ d em an d ed t h a t I leav e.” Al t h o u g h h e

ad m i t t ed t h at h e s i g n ed t h e i nt ern al M ARTA rep o rt ack n owl ed g i n g t h a t h e was at

fau l t fo r t h e “ prev en t ab l e” acci d en t

, h e en deav o red t o m i n i m i ze h i s ack n o w l ed g m en t

o f fau l t b y t es t i fy i n g th at “ [M ARTA] t o l d m e i t w as p rev en t ab le, s o I h ad t o s i g n t h e

[rep ort ] .” Th u s

, Dav i s ’ s t es t im o n y was n o t o n l y in co n si s t en t wi t h ey ewi t n es s

t es t i m o ny , i t was i n co n s is t en t wi t h h i m hav i n g been i s s u ed a ci t at io n i n co n n ect i o n

wi t h t h e acci d en t, i n co n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s ack n o wl ed g m en t o f fau l t i n t h e i n t ern al

4M ARTA rep ort

, an d i n co ns i st en t wi t h h i s d eci s i o n t o p ay t h e fi n e fo r t h e i m

p r o p er

l an e ch an g e ci t at io n wi t h o u t ap p eari n g i n t raffi c co u rt t o co n t es t i t.

Befo re cro ss -ex am i n i n g Dav i s

, t h e pl ai nt i ffs ’ co u n s el as ked t h e t ri al co u rt

,

o u t s i d e t he p res en ce of t h e ju ry

, t o reco n s i d er i t s ru l i n g o n t he m ot i o n i n l i m i n e. Aft er

h eari n g arg u m en t fro m co u ns el

, t h e t ri al u p h el d i t s earl ier ru l i n g

. Co n s eq u en t l y

, t h e

p l ai n t i ffs were p r e c l u d ed fro m cro s s -ex am i n i n g Dav i s reg ard in g t he ci t at i o n to

es t ab l i s h n eg l i g en ce p er s e i n t h e v i o l at io n o f a t raffi c l aw, as wel l as fo r th e p u rp o s es

o f i m p each m en t

.

In th ree rel at ed en u m erat i o n s o f erro r, t he pl ai n t i ffs co n ten d th at t h e t ri al co u rt

e r r e d i n ex cl u d i ng ad m i s s i b l e ev i d en ce t h at Dav i s h ad m ad e an ad m i s s i o n o f g u i l t

reg ard i n g t h e ci t at i o n fo r i m p ro p er l an e ch an g e by fo rfei t i n g h i s b o n d

. Un d er t h e

ci rcu m s t an ces p res en t ed h ere, we ag ree.

1

. “ Deci si o n s reg ard i n g t h e ad m i s s i b i li t y o f ev i d en ce an d t h e s co p e o f

cro s s -ex am i n at i o n fal l wi t h in t h e t ri al co urt ’ s d i s cret i o n

. Su ch d eci si o n s wi l l n o t b e

rev ers ed ab s en t a cl ear ab u s e o f d i s cret io n.” (Fo ot n o t es o m i t t ed .) Eu b a n ks v.

W a l dr o n , 2 6 3 Ga. Ap p . 7 5 , 7 5 (5 8 7 SE2 d 2 5 3 ) (2 0 0 3 ).

W e hav e co ns i st en t ly hel d t h at wh ere a part y p ay s a fi ne o n a ci t at io n an d fai l s

t o ap pear i n co u rt o n a ci t at io n

, t h e p art y ’ s fai l u re t o ap p ear i s d eem ed an ad m i s s i o n

5o f g u i l t

, an d t h i s ad m i s s i o n m ay s u bs eq u en t l y

b e u s ed i n a ci v i l act i o n fo r d am ag es

as an ad m i s s i o n ag ai n s t i n t eres t t o es t ab l i s h n eg l i gen ce. S ee Ca nn o n v. S t reet

, 2 2 0

Ga. Ap p

. 2 1 2

, 2 1 4 (2 ) (4 6 9 SE2 d 3 4 3 ) (1 9 9 6) (d efen d an t ad m it t ed t h at h e co m m i t t ed

t h e offen s e al l eg ed i n t h e c i t a t i o n b y v i rt u e o f h i s fai l u re t o ap p ear i n co u rt an d by

fo rfei t i n g h i s cas h fi n e); Ro b er t s v. Led b et t er

, 2 18 Ga. Ap p. 8 6 0

, 8 6 0 (1 ) (4 6 3 SE2 d

5 3 3 ) (1 99 5 ) (d efen d an t ’ s ad m i s s i o n t h at h e fai l ed t o ap p ear t o co nt es t a traffi c ci t at i o n

co u ld b e u s ed t o es tab l i s h n eg l i g en ce p er s e). T h es e r u l i n g s are co n s i s t en t wi th

OCGA § 4 0 -1 3 -5 8

, wh i ch p ro v i d es th at a p art y ci t ed fo r a t raffi c v i o l at i on wh o p o s t s

a cas h b o n d an d s u bs eq u en t l y fo rfei t s t h e b o n d b y fai l i n g t o ap p ear h as l eg al l y p l ed

g u i l t y

. “ U n d er s uch ci rcu m st an ces

, p lai n t iff h as es t ab l i s h ed n eg l i g en ce p er s e i n t h e

v i o l at i o n o f a s t at u t e, w h i ch is a p ri m a faci e s h o wi n g o f n eg l ig en ce.” ( C i t a t i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed .) Ro b er t s

, s u p ra.

Ho wev er, we h av e al s o ru l ed t h at n o s u ch ad m i s s i o n o ccu rs wh en a d efen d an t

s i m p l y p ay s a fi n e aft er p l ead i n g n o t g u i l t y o n a ci t at i o n

, p l ead s n o l o co n t en d ere, o r

i s ad ju d i cat ed g u i l t y

b y a t raffi c co u rt aft er p l ead i n g n o t g u i l t y

. W a s zcz a k v. Ci t

y o f

W a r n er Ro b i ns

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

, 5 2 8 -5 30 (1 ) (4 7 1 SE2 d 5 7 2) (1 9 9 6 ) (n o ex p l i ci t

v o l u n t ary ad m i s s i o n o f gu i l t s ho wn wh ere d efen d an t p l ed n o t g u i l t y t o ci t at i o n an d

t h en p o s t ed a cas h b o n d, part i cu l a r l y w h ere t here was n o ev i d en ce t o s h o w t h at

6d efen d an t ch an g ed h is p l ea o r to t al l y fai led t o ap p ear i n co u rt ); Hu n t er v. Ha r d n et t

,

1 9 9 Ga. A p p

. 4 4 3

, 4 4 3 (1 ) (4 05 SE2 d 2 8 6 ) (1 9 9 1 ) (“ an ad ju d i cat i o n o f g u i l t b y a

t raffi c co u rt t h at t h e d efen d an t was i n v i o l at i o n o f a l aw al l eg ed t o b e th e p ro x i m at e

cau s e o f t h e p l ai n ti ff’ s i nju ri es i s i n ad m i s s i b l e

. . . ” b ecau s e t h e defen d an t m ak es n o

ad m i s s i o n of g u il t u n der t h is ci rcu m s t an ce) (ci t at io n s om i t t ed ); Rees e v. Lyo n s

, 1 9 3

Ga. A p p. 5 48

, 5 4 8 (5 ) (3 8 8 SE2 d 3 6 9 ) (1 9 8 9 ) (ev i d en ce o f a no l o co n t en d ere p l ea to

a t raffi c ci t at i o n i s i n a d m is s ib l e s i nce it is n ot an ad m i s s i o n o f g u il t ). Su ch

ci rcu m s t an ces are n o t p res en t i n t he i n s t an t cas e.

Here, t here i s n o ev id en ce t h at Dav i s en t ered an y pl ea o r t o ok an y act i o n wi th

reg ard t o t h e ci t at io n w h ich wo u l d p recl u d e t h e ad m i s s i bi l i t y of h i s fai l u re t o ap p ear

a s a n a d m i s si o n ag ai n s t i n t eres t

. W h i l e i t i s t ru e t h at s i m p l y p ay i n g a fi n e i s n o t

, i n

an d of i t s el f, an ad m i ss i o n o f gu i l t

, s ee W as z cz a k

, s up ra at 52 9 -5 3 0 (1 ), t h e reco rd in

t h i s c a s e i s n o t l i m i t ed t o t h e p ay m en t o f t h e fi n e. In t h e in s t an t cas e, th ere was

ev i d en ce t hat Dav i s s i g n ed an in t ern al M ARTA rep o rt ack n o w l ed g i n g t h at t h e

acci den t was p rev en t ab l e an d u n ders to od t h i s t o m ean t h at h e was at fau l t

.

Fu rt h erm o re, Dav i s “ ad m i t t ed t h at h e [i m p ro p erl y c h a n g e d lan es ] as al l eg ed i n t h e

t raffi c ci t at i o n

, b y fai l i n g t o ap pear i n co u rt an d b y fo rfei t i n g h i s

. . . b o n d .” Ca n n o n

,

7s u p ra. Acco rd i n g ly

, w e fi n d n o reas o n ab l e b as i s fo r ex cl ud i n g ev i den ce o f th e b o n d

fo rfei t u re at t h e t ri al o f t h i s cas e.

Al t h ou g h M ARTA an d D av i s arg ue o n ap peal

, as t h ey d i d b el ow, t hat Dav i s

as k ed o n e o f h i s d au g h t ers t o g o o n l i n e an d p ay t h e fi n e fo r t h e ci t at i o n o n h i s b eh al f,

t h ere i s a l ack o f ev i den t i ary s u p p ort fo r th i s arg u m en t

. E v en i f s u ch fact s h ad

ev i d en t i ary s u p p o rt

, we fi n d n o m eri t i n t h ei r arg u m en t t h at s u c h p a ym e n t a n d t h e

res u l ti n g b on d fo rfei t u re sh o u l d n o t be co n s tru ed as an ad m is s i o n ag ai n s t i n t eres t o n

Dav is ’ p art

. Reg ard l es s o f wh et h er Dav is p ai d t h e fi n e p ers on al l y o r had hi s d au g h t er

d o i t o n hi s b eh al f, t h e e v i d en ce i s u n d i sp u ted t h at Dav i s was aware o f t he ci t at i o n

an d th at h e au t h o ri zed t h e p ay m en t o f t he fi n e. See Bu rn et t e v. Br o wn

, 2 7 2 G a. Ap p.

3 8 3

, 3 8 3 -3 8 4 (2 ) (6 1 2 SE2 d 4 8 9 ) (2 0 0 5 ) (wh ere d efen d an t w as a w a r e t hat s h e h ad

b een i s s ued a ci tat i o n fo r fai l u re t o m ai n t ai n l an e, d efen d an t ’ s h u sb an d p ai d ci t at i o n

o n d efen dan t’ s b eh al f an d lat er i n fo rm ed h er o f t hat fact

, an d d efen d an t s u bs eq u en t l y

fai l ed t o ap p ear i n co u rt t o co n t es t t h e ci t at i o n

, t he res u l t in g b o n d fo rfei t u re was

ad m i s s i b l e as ev i d en ce o f an ad m is s i o n ag ai n s t i n t e r e s t i n a p ers o n al i n ju ry act i o n

b ro u gh t ag ai n s t d efen d an t ). Co m p are Ho wa r d v. La

y

, 2 5 9 Ga. Ap p

. 3 9 1

, 3 9 1 -3 9 3 (1 )

(5 7 7 SE2 d 7 5 ) (2 0 0 3) (ev i d en ce o f b o n d fo rfei t u re p ro p erl y ex cl u d ed wh ere

d efen d an t was u n co n s ci ou s aft er t h e acci d en t an d d i d n o t fi n d o u t t h at s he h ad b een

8i s su ed a ci t at i o n o r t h at h er h us b an d h ad p ai d t he fi n e u nt i l l o n g aft er h er co u rt d at e

h ad p as s ed ).

2

. Gi v en o ur fi n d i n g t h at t h e ex cl u s i on o f ev i d en ce reg ard in g th e b o n d fo rfei t u re

was in erro r, we m

u s t n o w d et erm i ne wh et h er t h e erro r affect ed t h e v erd i ct

. Th e

d o ct ri n e o f h arm les s e r r o r i n ci v i l cas es i s s et fo rt h i n OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 1

, wh i ch

p ro v id es , i n rel ev an t p art , t h at

[n ] o erro r i n

. . . t h e ex cl u s i o n o f ev i d en ce

. . . b y th e co u rt

. . . i s g ro u n d

fo r g ran t i n g a n ew t ri al o r fo r set t i n g as i de a verd i ct or f o r v acat i n g

,

m o d i fy i ng , o r o t h erwi s e d i s t u rb i n g a ju d g m en t o r o rd er, u n l es s refu s al

t o t ak e s u ch act io n ap p ears t o t h e co u rt i n co n s is ten t wi th s u b s tan t i al

ju s t i ce. Th e co u rt at ev ery s t ag e o f t h e p ro ceed i n g m u s t d i s reg ard a n y

erro r o r defect i n th e p ro ceed in g wh i ch d o e s n o t affect t h e s u b s tan t i al

ri gh ts o f t he p art i es

.

Th ere ap p ears t o b e n o ex p l ici t s tan d ard i n o u r cas e l aw fo r wei g hi n g erro r in

ci v i l cas es

. Th u s

, th e d et erm i n at i o n o f wh et h er t h e erro r a f f e c te d a p art y ’ s “ s u b s t an t i al

ri gh t s” or w h e t h e r t h e fai lu re t o co rrect t h e erro r wo u l d b e “ i n co ns i s t en t wi th

s u b s t an t i al ju s t i ce” i s o ft en d iffi cu l t t o as cert ai n

. Cl earl y

, “ wh et her an erro r req u i res

rev ers al d ep en d s on t h e n at ure o f th e erro r an d t h e im p o rt an ce o f t h e is s u e t o wh i ch

i t ap p li es .” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed .) Ph i l l i p s v. Ha r mo n

, 2 9 7 Ga. 3 8 6

, 3 9 2

(I) (B) (7 4 4 SE2 d 5 9 6 ) (2 0 1 5 ).

9In fo rfei t i n g h i s b o n d

, Dav i s m ad e an ad m i s s i o n o f gu i l t t o m ak i n g an i m p ro p er

l an e ch an g e. See OCGA § 40 -1 3 -5 8 ; Ca n n on

, supr a

. H a d t hi s ad m i ss i o n b een al l o wed

i n t o ev i d en ce, th e p lai n t i ffs wo u l d h av e es t ab l i s h ed n eg l i g en ce p er s e i n th e vi o l at i o n

o f a t raffi c l aw an d, t hu s , a p ri m a faci e s h o wi n g o f n eg l i g en ce o n t he p art o f Dav i s

.

See Ro b er t

s

, su p ra. W e are u n p ers u ad ed b y t h e ap p el l ees ’ arg u m en t t h at t h i s

ad m i s s i o n ag ai n st in t eres t wo u l d h av e be e n m erel y cu m u l at iv e o f Dav i s ’

ack n owl ed gm en t o f fau l t i n t he i n t ern al MARTA rep o rt b ecau s e Dav i s was al l o wed

t o p ro v i d e u nfet t ered t es t i m o n y t o d i s cred i t h i s a c k n o wl ed g m en t

. W e fi n d t h at t h e

ex cl u s i o n o f Dav i s ’ b o n d fo rfei tu re o n t he ci t at i o n affect ed “ s ub s t an t i al ri g ht s ” o f t h e

p l ai n t i ffs b ecau s e i t p rev en t ed t h em fro m i m p each i ng Dav i s o n t h i s i m p o rt an t as p ect

o f th e c a s e. Fu rt h erm o re, as a res ul t o f t h e ex cl us i o n o f t he ci t at i o n an d b o n d

fo rfei t u re, Dav is was al l o w ed t o p ro v i d e t es t i m o n y t h at t h e p o l i ce o ffi cer

i n v es t i g at i n g t h e acci den t had i n fo rm ed h i m th at he was “ cl ear t o g o

, ” t h ereb y

creat i n g t h e i m

p res s i on t h at Dav i s h ad b een ex o n erat ed b y t h e p ol i ce.

In s u m

, t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ex cl u s io n o f th e ev i d en ce rel at i n g t o Dav i s ’ ci t a t i o n

an d b o nd fo rfei t u re p recl u ded t h e pl ai n t i ffs fro m es t ab l i s hi ng neg l i gen ce p er s e by

v i rt u e of h i s ad m i s s i o n ag ai n s t i n t eres t

, an d i t fu rt h er d ep ri ved t h em o f v i a b l e

10o p p o rt u ni t i es t o i m peach Dav i s

. Acco rd in g l y

, w e fi n d t hat un d er t h e fact s o f t h i s cas e

t h at t h e v erd i ct can n ot s t an d

.

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Ba r n es , P. J., a n d

McMi l l i a n , J., co n cu r

.

11