SECOND DI VI SI ON M I LLER, P. J. , M A RKLE 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 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
Septem ber 16, 2024



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

A 24A 0 802, A 24A 0803. CI TY OF M I LTON v . CH A N G e t al. ; and
v ic e v ersa.
M A R K L E , J u d ge. I n N o v ember 201 6 , J o shu a Chang w as k illed in a s i n g l e- car ac c id ent o n B a tesv ille Ro a d in the City o f Milto n (“ the City” ) w hen his c ar stru c k a c o nc rete
p lanter that w as lo c ated o n the sho uld er. H is p arents su ed the City f o r negligenc e and

nu isanc e, and a j u ry f

o u nd the City liable, aw a rd ing o v er $30 millio n in d amages. 1 I n Case N o . A 24A 0802, the C ity ap p e als f ro m the d enial o f its mo tio ns f o r j u d gment

no tw ithstand ing the v erd ic t (“ J N OV ” ) and f o r new trial on t he gro u nd s that (1 ) it w as

e n t itled to so vereign immu nity, and (2) the trial c o u rt erred by a d mitting testimo n y

1 Chang’ s p arents also su ed tw o o ther entities that o wned and o p erated th e p ro p e rty ad j ac e nt to the p lanter, b u t they settled their c laims w ith t ho se d ef end ants early in the litigatio n.regard ing interp retatio ns o f the ap p lic able City ord inanc es. I n Case N o . A24A 0803,

the Changs c ro ss- ap p eal f ro m the trial c o u rt’ s f

ailu re t o (1 ) ap p ly p re- j u d gment interest to the ju ry’ s aw ard , and (2) enter j ud gment nu nc p ro tu nc to the d a te o f the j u ry’ s v erd ic t. Fo r the r easo ns that f o llo w , w e af

f irm in Case N o. A 24A 0802 and w e

v ac ate and remand w ith d irec tio n in Case N o . A 24A 0803.

[O]n ap p eal f

ro m the d enial o f a mo tio n f o r a direc ted v erd ic t o r
a mo tio n fo r [

J N OV ], we c o nstru e the ev i d e n ce in the light mo st f av o rable to the p arty op p o sing the mo tio n, and t h e stand ard of rev iew is w hether there is any ev id enc e to s u p p o rt the j u ry ’ s v erd ic t. A nd bec au s e the ju ro rs are the so le and exc lu siv e j ud ges o f the w eig h t a nd
c red it giv en the e v i d en c e, w e mu st co nstru e the ev id enc e w ith ev e ry inf erenc e a n d p resu mp tio n in f av o r of u p ho ld ing the v erd ic t, and af ter j u d gment, t he e v id e nc e mu st be c o nstru ed to u p h o l d t he v erd ic t ev en
w here t he ev id e nc e is in c o nf lic t. Ev e n so , w e r ev iew qu estio ns o f law d e
no v o . (Citatio ns, p u nc tu a tio n, a nd emp hasis o mitt e d

. ) B r i sto l C o ns ulti n g Gro u p v . D 2
Pro perty Gro u

p , 36 6 Ga. A p p . 843, 849 (2) (884 SE2d 546 ) (2023).
So v iew ed , t he rec ord s ho w s that, o ne ev ening in N ov ember 201 6 , c o llege

stu d ent J o shu a Chang w as d riv ing bac k to his p are n t s ’ h o u s e w hen his c ar lef t the
p a v ed p o rtio n o f the ro ad w ay, slid mo re than 6 0 feet, and c o llid ed w ith a large

2c o nc r ete p lanter o n the sho u ld er o f B a tesv ille Ro ad in the City. The imp ac t c au sed the

c ar to f lip and land o n t o p o f the p lanter, killing J o shu a. There w as no ev id enc e that J o shu a w as sp eed ing o r into xic ated at the time o f the ac c id ent; no r w as there ev id enc e he w as using his c ell p ho ne w hile d riv ing. Instead , based o n the physic al ev id enc e at the sc ene, an ac c id ent rec o nstru c tio nist o p i ned that it ap p eared that J oshu a had p u lled
the steering w heel hard right, as if trying t o av oid s o m ething in the ro ad , c au sing the

c ar to yaw sid ew ays o nto the sho u ld er bef ore strik ing the p lanter. 2
The p lanter sat o n a p art o f the sho u ld e r betw een tw o driv ew ays that pro v id ed ingress and egress fo r an ad jac e nt ev ent f ac ility. I t is und isp u ted that t he planter w as lo c ated abo u t six f

eet o ff the ro ad w ay, bu t w ithin the right- of

- w a y, as d ef ined by City
Ord inanc e § 48- 6 53. Chang’ s p arents s u e d t h e City, alleging it was negligent and in breac h o f its
ministerial d u ty t o ensu re t he ro ad w ays w ere saf e, and t h a t the p lanter c reated a

nu isanc e. 3 Prio r to t rial, 4 the City f iled a mo tio n in limine to exc lu d e testimo ny f ro m

2 A yaw is a sid ew ays slid ing mo v ement, w hereas a sk id is f o r w a r d m o t i o n in
w hic h the tires d o no t ro tate.

3 The Changs initially p led a c laim f or negligenc e p er se f

o r v i o l a t io ns o f the City’ s Ord inanc es, bu t they later w ithd rew t hat c laim. To state a c laim f or negligenc e, the Changs had to s ho w that the City breac hed a d u t y a n d t h a t breac h c au sed
3City emp lo yees r egard ing their i n terp retatio ns o f the relev ant City o rd inanc es.

A ltho u gh the trial c o u rt initially granted the mo tio n to exc lu d e, it later rev isited that
d ec isio n and allo w ed the testimo ny. The testimo ny at trial e stablished that th e p l anter w a s o n the City’ s pro p erty and in the right- of

-w ay, whic h the City w a s resp o nsible f o r maintaining. Per its

o rd inanc es, the City w as resp o nsible f o r insp ec ting its ro ad w ays, id entif ying d ef ec ts, and remo v in g h a z a r d s , s u c h as the p lanter. Sp ec if ic ally, sev e ral w itnesses testif ied that
the City sho u ld hav e no tic ed and remo v e d the p lanter w hen it co mp leted r ep air w o rk

to B atesv ille Ro a d in 201 2. Exp erts o p ined that the p lanter w as a p ro blem, and “ the
ap p ro p riate resp o nse” and “o b v io u s c ho ic e ” w as to remo v e it. Bu t the City had no t

c o nd u c t ed any saf

ety insp e c tio ns, and ac c o r d ing to the City’ s o w n co d e e nf o rc ement

o f f ic er, “ o o p s, . . . ho w c o u ld w e nev er no tic e” the existenc e o f the p lanter.

d amages. See Glo v e r v . G a . Po wer C

o. , 347 Ga. A p p . 3 7 2 , 3 7 5 ( 1 ) ( 81 9 SE2d 6 6 0) (201 8). That d u ty c a n be established by statu te. Id

. R e lev ant here, u nd er OCGA § 32- 4- 9 3 (a), t he City has a du ty t o k e ep its streets f ree f ro m d e f ec ts o f w hic h it had no tic e. See a lso Ma

yo r a n d Alderma n o

f C ity o f S a va n n a h v . Herrera , 343 Ga. Ap p . 424, 428 (1 ) (808 SE2d 41 6 ) (201 7 )

.

4 The City mo v ed f

o r su mmary j u d gment, argu ing t h a t i t w a s entitled to so v ereign immu nity f

ro m su it u nd er OCGA § 36

- 33- 1 and the Geo rgia Co nstitu tio n o f 1 9 8 3 , A r t I X , Sec

. I I , Para. IX. The trial c o u rt d enied the mo tio n, and this Co urt d enied interlo c u to ry rev iew

. 4The j u ry f o u nd the City liable b ec a u se it had main t ai n e d a d ef ec t and a

nu isanc e. I t aw ard ed d amages in the amo u nt o f thirty- f iv e m illio n d o llars, w hic h w as red u ced by sev en p e rc ent f o r the amo unt o f

J o shu a’ s c o mp arativ e f

au lt.
B e f o re the trial co u r t entered ju d gment, the Changs mo v ed f o r p re- j u d gment interest u nd er OCGA § 51

- 1 2- 1 4 (a), no t ing that they had mad e a settlement d emand by c e rtif ied mail, w hic h the City rej ec ted , and they had obtained a j u d gment in exc ess

o f the amo u nt o f the d emand . The trial c o u rt entered j u dgment ref lec ting the j u ry’ s

v erd ic t, bu t it d id no t aw ard p re- j u d gment interest. The Changs later renew ed their

mo tio n f o r p re- j u d gment interest, and requ ested the trial c o u r t enter j u d gment in the

c ase nu nc p ro tu nc t o the d ate o f the j u ry’ s v erd ic t. The trial c o urt did no t ru le o n this

mo tio n. The City mo v ed f

or a new trial and f

o r J N OV , raising t h e same argu ments it

no w raises o n ap peal. The trial c o u r t denied bo th mo tio ns. B o th t he City and the Changs no w ap peal.
C a se N o . A 24 A0802

1

. The City argu es that the trial c o u rt erred by d enying its mo tio n f o r J N OV
bec au se (a) the negligenc e c laim w as barred by so v ereign immu nity; (b) if it w as no t

5barred by immu nity, the rec ov ery w as limited to the $2 millio n insu ranc e p o lic y limit;

(c ) the nu isanc e c laim w as barred by so vereign immu nity; and (d ) the p laintif f s f ailed

to establish the planter w as a nu isanc e. I t f urther argu es that the trial c o u rt erred by
p ermitting w itnesses to testif y to their interp retatio n o f the relev ant City o rd inanc es. W e c o n c l u d e the City w aiv e d its immu nity and that any erro r in ad m itting the
testimo ny w as harmless. (A ) So v e rei

gn i mmu n i ty

“ Mu nic ip alities are p ro tec ted by so v ereign immu nity p u rsu ant t o A r tic le I X,
Sec tio n I I , Paragrap h I X o f the Geo r gia Co nstitu tio n unless t hat immu nity is w aiv ed
b y t he General A s sembly o r b y the terms o f the Co nstitu t io n itself

. ” (Citatio ns and
f o o tno te o mitted

. ) Ma

yo r & Alder

ma n o f C i t y o f Sa v a n n a h v . Herrera , 343 Ga. A p p . 424, 427 (1 ) (808 SE2d 41 6 ) (201 7 ); see a l so O C G A § 36

- 33- 1 (a) (“ it is the p u blic
p o lic y o f the St at e o f Geo rgia t hat there is no w aiv er o f the so v ereign immu nity o f

mu nic ip al c o rp o ratio ns o f the state and su ch mu nic ip al c orp o ratio ns shall be immu ne f ro m liability f

or d amages. ” ). “The bu rd e n o f d e mo nstrating a w aiv er o f so v ereign
immu nity rests u p on the p arty asserting it. ” Ga

. D ept. o f La b o r v . RTT As

s o c. , 29 9 Ga.

7 8, 81 (1 ) (7 86 SE2d 840) (201 6 ). “ W hethe r s o v e r e ign immu nity has been w aiv ed

6u nd er t he u nd isp u ted f ac ts is a qu estio n o f law , and w e c o n d u c t a d e no vo rev iew

. ”
S mi th v. C

i ty o f Ro s well , 36 1 Ga. A pp . 853, 856 (2) (86 4 SE2d 1 7 5) (2021 ).
The General A s sembly has carv e d o u t t w o sep arate w aiv ers o f the

mu nic ip al i t y’ s so v ereign immu nity: First, a m u nic ip ality c an w aiv e its immu nity
thro u gh the p u rc hase o f insu ranc e u nd er c ertain c irc u mstanc es. OCGA § 36

- 33- 1 (a);

see also C i ty o f Atla n ta v . Mi tcha m , 29 6 Ga. 57 6, 57 7 (1 ), n. 2 (7 6 9 SE2d 320) (201 5);
S mi th , 36 1 Ga. A p p . at 855 (2).
Sec o nd , mu nic ip al c o r po ratio ns c a n be liable f o r negligenc e in the perf

ormanc e

o f their ministerial d u ties. 5 OCGA § 36

- 33- 1 (b); Herrera , 343 Ga. A p p . at 427

- 428 (1 ).
A nd w e hav e exp l a i n e d t h a t “ [ o ]ne su c h ministerial du t y . . . is the d u ty o f a

mu nic ip ality to maintain c ity streets in a reaso nably saf e c o n d i t io n f

or trav el. ”

5 M inisterial f

u nc tio ns . . . are rec o gniz ed as tho se inv o lv ing the exerc ise o f so me p riv ate f ranc hise, o r so me f

ranc hise
c onf e rred u p o n t he mu nic ip al c o rp o r atio n by law w hic h it may exer cise f

o r the p riv ate p ro f

it o r c o nv enienc e o f the
c orp o ratio n o r f

or the co nv enienc e o f

its c itiz ens alo ne, in

w hic h the general p u blic has no interest.
(Citatio n and p u nc tu a tio n o mitted

. ) Mi tchu m , 29 6 Ga. at 57 8 ( 2); see also Ga tto v . C i ty o f S ta tes b o ro , 312 G a . 16 4 , 16 7 ( 1 ) (86 0 SE2d 7 1 3) (2021 ) (d esc ribing go vernmental and ministerial f

u nc tio ns).

7Herrera , 343 G a. A p p . at 428 (1 ). The General A s sembly, ho w e v er, has limited any

su c h liability by statu te:
A mu nic ip a lity is reliev ed o f any a nd all liability resu lting f ro m o r
o c c asio ned by d ef

ec ts in the p u blic ro ad s o f its mu nic ip al street system

w hen it has no t b een negligent in c o nstru c ting o r maintaining the same
o r w hen it h as n o ac t u al no tic e thereo f o r when su c h d ef ec t has no t existed f o r a su f f ic ient length o f

time f o r no tic e thereo f

to be inf erred

.
OCGA § 32- 4- 9 3 (a). “ Thu s, stated po siti v e l y, m u nic ip alities generally hav e a ministerial d u t

y to k eep their s treets in rep a ir, and they are liable f o r inj u ries resu lting
f ro m d ef ec ts af ter ac tu al no tic e, o r af

t er the d ef

ec t has existed f

o r a su f f ic ient length

o f t i me f o r no tic e to be inf

erred

. ” ( Citatio n and pu nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) H errera , 343
Ga. A p p . 428 (1 ); see a lso Ga tto v . C ity o f S ta tes b o r

o , 3 1 2 Ga. 1 6 4, 1 6 7 (1 ), n. 4 (86 0 SE2d 7 1 3) ( 2 0 2 1) (“ Geo rgia c o u rts hav e lo ng held that the d u ty to maintain streets and sid ew alk s free f

ro m o bstru c tio ns and o ther dangers is a minister i al d u ty. ” ) (emp hasis o mitted ). (i) Mi n i s teri a l du ty
W e b e g i n w ith whether the City w aiv ed its s o v ereign immu nity u nd er the
ministerial d u ty exc ep tio n, and o u r analysis c o n s i d ers ( a ) w hether the p lanter w as a

8d ef

ec t in the ro ad ; and (b) w hether the City had no tic e o f it. See OCGA §§ 32- 4- 9 3 (a); 36 -33- 1 (b); H

errera , 343 Ga. A p p . at 428 (1 ). (a) Di d t he pla n ter co ns ti tu t

e a defect i n the ro a d
Fo r mo r e than 10 0 y e a rs, the ru le in G eo rgia has b een: “ [t]he mu nic ip ality
sho u ld no t allo w o bstru c tio ns . . . to ad j o in the trav eled w ay w hic h w ill rend e r its u se

u nsaf e and d angero u s. . . . Cities are liable f o r . . . negligently allo wing o bstru c tio ns lik ely to c au se inj u ry to be p lac ed u p o n o r near the line[. ]” ( Citatio ns a nd p u nc tu atio n

o mitted .) C

i t y C o u n ci l o f Au gu s ta v . Tha rpe , 1 1 3 Ga. 1 52, 1 5 5- 56 (38 SE 389 ) (1 9 01 ).
H ere, t here is no d i s p u te that the planter w as lo cated o n the sho u ld er and

w ithin the right- o f

- w ay o n the City’ s p ro p e r t y . Imp o rtantly, the term “ ro ad ” is
d ef ined by statu te as

a highw ay, ro a d , street, av enu e, to ll ro ad , to llw a y , d riv e, d eto ur, o r o ther

w ay that either is o p en to the p u blic o r has been ac qu ired as right o f w ay, and is intend ed to be u sed f o r enj o ym ent by the p ublic and f or the p assage o f

v ehic les in any c o u nty o r mu nic ip ality o f Geo r gia, inc lu d ing bu t no t l imited to the f

o llo w ing p u blic rights, stru c tu res, sid ew alk s, f ac ilitie s , a n d a p p u r t e n a n ce s i n ci d e n t a l t o t h e co n s t r u ct i o n , m a intenanc e, and enj o yment o f su c h rights o f w a y : (A ) Su rf

ac e , sho u ld ers, and sid es[. ]

9OCGA § 32- 1- 3 (24). 6

I n ad d itio n, the City’ s o w n mu nic ip al c o d e d ef ines right- o f

- w a y t o inc lu d e the
sho u ld er. City o f M ilto n M u nic ip al Co d e § 48- 6 53. 7 The City ac k no w led ges that the
p lanter was o n t he sho u ld er, in the right- of

- w ay o n a City

- o w n e d ro a d

. There w as ad d itio nal ev id enc e that the sho u ld er w as u sed f o r d riv ers in cases o f emergenc y o r in

ev asiv e maneu v ers. Thu s, the rec o rd d emo nstrates that the p lanter w as in t he ro ad as that term is d ef

ined by statu te. OCGA § 32- 1

- 3 (24).
Tu rning to w hether the p lanter w as a d ef ec t, w e hav e held that a d e f ec t in the

street “ inc lu d e[s] o bj ec ts ad j ac ent to , and su sp end ed o v e r, the m u nic ip ality’ s streets and sid ew alk s, the presenc e of w hic h rend ers the u se o f these tho ro u gh f ares mo re

6 W e c anno t ac c ep t the City’ s argu ment du ring o ral argu ment that the p lanter
w as no t in the ro ad bec a u se it w a s no t in an area intend ed to be used f o r v e hic le trav el. I t is well- settled that “ w hen interp reting a statu te, all its w ord s m u st be giv e n d u e w eight; w e are f

orbid d en to ‘ read ou t’ a ny w o rd s in the statu te u nless a c lear reaso n ap p ears f o r d o ing s o . ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n omitted

. ) AgS o u th Fa rm C redi t v . Go wen Ti mb er Co

. , 336 Ga. Ap p . 581 , 589 ( 2) (b) (i) (7 84 SE2d 9 1 3) (201 6 ). A nd , w e mu st av o id “ a statu t ory c o nstru c tio n that w ill rend e r s o me o f the s tatu to ry langu age mere su rp lu sage[. ]” Ken n edy v . C a rlto n , 29 4 Ga. 57 6 , 57 8 (2) (7 5 7 SE2d 46 ) (201 4). Read ing the statu t e in this manner, we c o n c l u d e t h at the p lanter w a s in the ro ad as that term is d ef

ined by statu te. OCGA § 32- 1

- 3 (24).

7 I nterestingly, this d ef

initio n a p p ears in the p o rtio n o f the m u nic ip al c o d e, entitled “ Trail D ev e lo p ment Stand ard s. ” B ut no o ne argu es that the d ef initio n w o u ld be d if f e rent elsew here in the Co d e.
10haz ard o us. ” (Citatio ns o mitted

. ) Ki ckli ghter v . S a v a n n a h Tra n s i t Au th. , 16 7 G a. A p p . 528, 5 30 (2) (307 SE2d 47 ) (1 9 83) (w hether p o w er p o le o n c u rb a rea w as a d ef ec t w as
qu estio n o f f

ac t f o r the j u ry w here bu s p assenger go t arm c a u ght betw een bu s w ind ow and p o le and the b u s remained o n the ro ad ). A nd in su c h c ases, w e hav e rep eated ly
f o u nd that the City w a iv ed its immu nity. See Herrera , 343 Ga. Ap p . a t 4 2 9

- 4 3 2 (1 ) (City w aiv ed its immu nity w h e r e trees a d j a c ent to street m ay hav e o bstru c ted v iew
and it w as f

o r the j u ry to d e c id e if they w ere a def ec t); DeW

a ters v . C i ty o f A tla n ta , 1 6 9
Ga. A p p . 41 , 43- 44 (1 ) ( 3 1 1 SE2d 232) (1 983) (City no t immu ne f ro m s u it inv o lv ing

sew er grate in ro ad that inj u red bic yc list); Ba rn u m v. Ma rti n , 1 35 Ga. A p p . 7 1 2, 7 1 6

-
7 1 7 ( 3) (21 9 SE2d 341 ) ( 1 97 5) (ro ad w ith i m p r o p er elev a tio n and sharp c u rv e w as d ef ec tiv e and City had o bligatio n to rep air it o r p ro v id e w arning), d isap p ro v ed o f o n

o ther gro u n d s b y Dept. of Pu bli c S a fety v . Ra gs da l e , 308 Ga. 21 0 , 21 4, n. 7 (839 SE2d
541 ) (2020); C

i t y o f M i lledgev i l le v . Ho l lo wa y , 32 Ga. A p p . 7 34 (1 24 SE 802) (1 9 24) (City breac hed m inisterial d ut y t o k eep streets in saf e c o nd itio n w here d riv er w as f o rc e d to tu rn o nto sid estreet t o av o id o bstru ctio n in ro a d , w hic h resu lted in d riv er sk id d ing into d itc h no t p ro tec ted by gu ard rail)

.

11H ere, the testimo ny established that the p lanter w as lo cated o n the City’ s

p ro p e rty i n t h e right- o f

-w ay and o n the sho u ld er. Ad d itio nal testimo ny e stablished
that the sho u ld er w a s u sed to giv e d riv ers a plac e to maneu v er if they need ed to p u ll

o f f the ro ad o r to p erf

o rm an ev asiv e maneu v er, and that the p resenc e o f the p lanter

o n the sho u ld e r w as a haz ard f o r v ehic les leav ing the trav e l lanes. There was ad d itio nal
testimo ny t hat the C i t y sho u ld hav e d isc o v ered the existenc e o f the p lanter and

remo v ed it. Giv en these f

ac ts, it w as f

o r the j ury to d etermine if the p lanter c o nstitu ted

a d ef ec t. Herrera , 3 43 Ga. A p p . at 430 (1 )

. 8 A nd , as no ted , there w a s ev id enc e f ro m

w hic h the j u ry c ou ld f

ind that the p lanter w as an “ obj ec t[] ad j ac ent to ” the ro ad w ay,

8 T he Changs c o ntend that Herrera w as limited to c o nsid e rat i o n o f d ef ec ts o u tsid e the ro ad , similar t o S mi th

. See C ha tha m Area Tra n s i t Au th. v. Bra n tley , 353 Ga. A p p . 1 9 7, 201 (1 ) (8 3 4 SE2d 5 9 3) (201 9)(“ at no p o int in Herrera d id w e d isc u ss the p hrase ‘ mu nic ip al s t r e e t system’ o r its meaning. Ou r c o nc lu sio n in that case, as it c learly states, merely ad d resses w hat may be co nsid ered a d ef ec t based o n its lo c atio n in relatio n to the pu blic ro ad , no t w hether the p u blic ro ad is p art o f t h e m u n ic ip al street sys t e m . ” )

. This d esc r ip tio n in Bra n t ley is to o narro w a r e ad ing o f Herrera , w hic h w as c o nc erned w ith w hat c o nstitu ted a “ d ef e c t” o n the ro ad

. See Herrera , 343 Ga. A p p . at 428- 430 (1 ) (“ The qu estio n then tu r ns o n w hat co nstitu tes a d ef e c t in the p u blic r o a d s . . . and w hether o bj ec ts ad j ac ent to the ro ad th a t o b s t r u c t t he v iew o f trav ellers o n t he ro ad are c o nsid ered ‘ d ef ec ts in the p u blic r o a ds. ’ ” ) (c itatio n o mitted )

.

12w hic h “ rend ers the u se o f these tho ro u ghf ares m o r e haz ard o u s. ” (Citatio n o mitted

. )
Ki c kli ghter , 1 6 7 Ga. A p p . at 530 (2); see also OCGA § 32- 4- 9 3 (a).
W e are u np ersu a d ed by t he City’ s relianc e o n S mi t h v. C i ty o f Ro s well , 36 1 Ga.
A p p . 853 (86 4 SE2d 1 75) ( 2021 ), a nd f ind that c ase d i st i n g u ishable. I n S mi th , w hile
d riv ing u nd er the inf

lu enc e, a f

ather d ro v e his c a r o f

f t h e ro ad a nd stru c k tw o

m ailbo xes, k illing himself and his d au ghter. I d

. at 853. T he c hild ’ s mo ther su ed t h e City o f Ro sw ell, argu ing that the f ailu re to remo v e the m ailbo xes w a s a m i n isterial
d u ty. I d. The trial c o u rt granted Ro sw ell’ s mo tio n to d ismiss o n so v ereign immu nity
g r o u nd s. I d

. On ap p eal, this Co u rt c o nsid ered whether the mailbo xes c onstitu t e d
d ef ec ts in the ro a d , no ting that it w as u nd isp uted that t he mailbo xes w ere no t in o r o n the ro ad , as the p laintif

f had p led that the c ar “lef t the ro a d w ay” bef

o re strik ing them.
I d. at 858- 859 (2) (b). Giv en that f ac t , w e exp lained , [w ] here a p laintif

f alleges t h a t the d ef

ec tiv e c ond itio n w hic h c au s ed inj ury w a s lo cated o n a p art o f the c ity’ s street and sid ew alk system, there
mu s t b e so me e v i

den ce tha t the defect w a s lo ca ted i n a n area accepted b

y the ci ty, ei ther e

x p r e s sly or b y i mpli ca ti o n , fo r u se a s a s treet o r s idewa lk, b efo re the ci ty ca n be cha rge d w i t

h l i a b i li ty fo r n egli

gen tly fa i li n g to ma i n t a i n the
a rea i n a rea s o n a b ly s a

fe co n di ti o n. (Citatio n o m itted ; emp hasis su p p lied

. ) I d

. at 858 (2) (b).

13The analysis in Smi th d id no t ad d ress w hether a n o bj ec t i n the ro a d c o nstitu ted

a def ec t su c h that the City had a ministerial du ty to remo ve it. “ [Q ] u e st i o n s w hic h merely lu rk in t he r ec o rd , neither bro u ght to the attentio n o f the co u rt no r ru led u p o n,

are no t to b e c o nsid ered as hav ing been so d ec id ed as t o c o n s t i t u te p r ec e d ents. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o m itted

. ) W o lfe v . Bd. o

f Regen ts o f the Un i v . S ys tem o f Ga

. , 300 Ga. 223, 231 (2) (d ) (7 9 4 SE2d 85) (201 6 ). M o reo v er, v a rio u s City e m p lo yees testif ied that the p lanter w a s o n the sho u ld er, in the r ight- o f

- w a y, o n a City- o w ned

street. Thu s, w e d o no t f

ind S mi th o n p o int. 9 (b) W hether the Ci t

y ha d n o ti ce o f the defect i

n the ro a d
A s w e hav e exp lained , no tic e c an be ac tu al o r c o nstru c tiv e . Herrera , 343 Ga.
A p p . at 428 (1 ).

Co nstru c tiv e no t ic e o f a d ef ec t may be imp u ted t hro u g h the k no w led ge o f the c ity’ s emp lo ye e s o r a gents, o r may b e sho w n by testimo ny as to ho w lo ng the d ef ec t existed p rio r to the inj ury, o bj ec tiv e
ev id enc e t hat the d ef

e c t e xisted o v er time, o r ev id enc e that o thers w ere

9 Lik ew ise, C

i t y o f Vi d a li a v . Bro wn , 237 Ga. A p p . 831 , 832- 834 (1 ) ( 51 6 SE2d 851 ) (1 9 99 ) (p hysic a l prec ed ent o nly), o n whic h the City relies, is also d istingu ishable b e c a u se that c ase d id no t inv o lv e a haz ard o r d ef ec t i n the ro ad w a

y w here v ehic les c o u ld trav el. See also C

i ty of Alpha retta v . Ha mb

y , 352 Ga. A pp . 51 1 , 51 5- 51 6 ( 1) (b) (ii) (835 SE2d 36 6 ) (201 9).
14inj ured as a resu lt o f t he same c o nd itio n o ver a p erio d o f years. T he

qu estio n o f c o nstru c tiv e no tic e ord inarily is fo r th e j u ry, exc ep t in the absenc e o f any ev id enc e o f c o nstru c tiv e no tic e that c o u ld create a f ac t qu estio n, and in su c h an instanc e, the issu e o f negligenc e is a matter o f law

. Fu rther, t he length o f time a d ef ec t m u st exist in ord e r f o r a n inf erenc e o f no tic e to arise is o rd inarily a j ury qu estio n. (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o m itted

. ) Herrera , 343 G a. Ap p . at 431 (1 ) ; s ee also Tu cker

v . C i t y of Tho ma s v ille , 36 7 Ga. A p p . 7 00, 7 02 (888 SE2d 26 5) ( 2023); C i ty o f S u wa n ee

v . Pa dgett , 36 4 Ga. A p p . 34, 37

- 38 (3) (b) (87 3 SE2d 7 1 2) (2022) (Go o gle s treet v iew
p ho to s tak en years bef

o re inj u ry w as su ff

ic ient to raise j u ry qu estio n o f c o nstru c tiv e

no tic e); bu t s ee Ci t

y o f Bru n s wi ck v . S mi th , 350 Ga. A pp . 501 , 504- 505 (829 SE2d 7 81 ) (201 9 ) (Go o gle street v iew p ho to grap h o f d ef ec t p rio r to p laintif

f ’s ac c id ent d id no t

c reate ju ry qu estio n in absenc e o f o ther ev id enc e t o s h o w d e f ec t had existed o v er time).
H ere, there w as testimo ny that the p lanter p re- d ated the City’ s inc o rp o ratio n in 2006 , that the City p erf ormed rep air w ork o n t he ro ad in 201 2, and the City c o u ld
hav e no tic ed and re mo v ed t he p lanter then. The City’ s rep resentativ e also

ac k no w led ged that, in s u rv eys c o mp leted p rio r to the ac c id ent, t he p lanter is v isible.
A s s u c h, there w as su f

f ic ient ev id enc e f

ro m w h i c h t he j u r y c o u ld co nc lu de the City

15had no tic e. See Herrera , 343 Ga. A pp . at 431

- 432 (1 ) ( ev id enc e o f p rio r ac c id ents and

City w o r k er’ s o bserv a tio n o f o bstru c tio n created j u ry qu estio n as to no tic e o f

nu isanc e). (ii) In s u ra n ce po li

cy The C i ty a lso mentio ns brief ly that any w aiv er o f immu nity is limited to the

extent o f the insu ranc e p o lic y. B u t ministerial d u ty a nd insu ranc e are tw o sep arate and
d istinc t w aiv e rs o f immu n ity. H av ing c o nc lu d ed that the City w aiv e d its immu nity
based o n its ministeri a l d u ty, w e need no t c o nsid er whether it w aiv ed immu nity by
p u rc hasing insu ranc e. OCGA § 36

- 33- 1 (a), (b). (B ) N u i sa n ce 1 0
I f a mu nic ip ality is to be held liable u nd er a theo ry of maintaining
a nu isanc e, there mu st be the maintenanc e o f a d angero u s c o nd itio n o n
a co ntinu o u s o r regu lar basis ov er a p erio d o f time in whic h no a c tio n o r inad e qu ate ac tio n is tak en to c o rrec t the c o nd itio n af t e r k n o w led ge

1 0 The City ask s u s to o v erru le tw o Su p reme Co urt o f Geo rgia c ases ho ld ing that there is a n u i s anc e “ exc ep tio n” to so v ereign immu nity. It go es w itho u t saying that this Co u r t canno t “ o v erru le” d ec isio ns of o ur Su p reme Co u rt. See E tki n d v . S u a rez , 234 Ga. A p p . 1 08 (505 SE2d 831 ) (1 9 9 8) (“ [T]his c o u rt has no au tho rity to o v erru le o r mo d if y a d ec isio n o f the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia a s the d e c isio ns o f the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia shall bind all o ther c o u rts as p r ec e d ents. ” ) (c i ta t io ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); see also McC u llo ch v . S ta te , 357 Ga. A p p . 6 7 , 6 9 (1 ), n. 4 (849 SE2d 7 9 5) (2020).
16thereo f

. If the mu nic ip ality d id no t p erf o rm an ac t c reating the d angero u s
c o nd itio n, . . . the failu re o f the mu nic ip ality to r e c t i f y the d angero u s
c o nd itio n mu st be in v io latio n of a d u t y t o a c t. The mu nic ip ality mu st either hav e kno wled ge o r be c hargeable w ith no tic e o f th e d angero u s
c o nd itio n[. ]
(Citatio ns, p u nc tu atio n, and emp hasis o mitted

. ) Ki ckli ghter , 1 6 7 G a. A pp . at 531 (3);

see a lso C

i ty o f A lpha retta v. Vla s

s , 36 0 G a . A p p . 4 3 2, 435- 436 (1 ) (86 1 SE2d 249 ) (2021 ); Heller v . C

i ty of Atla n ta , 29 0 Ga. Ap p . 345, 350 (2) (6 59 SE2d 6 1 7 ) (2008);
OCGA § 41

- 1

- 1 ( “ A nu isanc e is anything that c a u ses hu rt, inc o nv enienc e, o r d amage

to a no ther and the f

ac t that the a c t d o ne may o therw ise be law f u l shall no t k e e p it f

ro m being a nu isanc e . ” ). 1 1
I n light o f o u r co nc lu s io n in D iv isio n 1 ( A ) ( i) t hat the City w as no t entitled to immu nity o n the negligenc e claim, w e need no t ad d ress the City’ s argu ment that the Changs f ailed t o establish a nu isanc e. N o tably, the j u ry f o und the City liable f

o r bo th

1 1 The Changs co ntend that the City has w aiv ed any argu ment that the p lanter c o nstitu ted a p riv ate nu isanc e (as o p p o sed to a p u blic o ne) bec au se it d id no t raise the argu ment in its mo t io n f

o r direc ted v erd ic t. See generally, Av io n Sys tems v . Bello mo , 338 Ga. A p p . 1 41 , 1 44 (2) (7 89 SE2d 3 7 4 ) ( 2 0 1 6 ) ( p arty c anno t raise issu e in J N OV th a t i t d id no t raise in m otio n f o r d irec ted v erd ic t). Ho wev er, the City’ s main argu ment is that there w as no w aiv er o f so v ereign immu nity f o r nu isanc e c laims, and the Changs f

ailed to establish the elements o f nu isanc e . A nd , t he argu m ents o n ap p eal are the same as tho se raised in the mo tio ns f o r d irec t e d v erd ic t and J N OV

. 17negligenc e and nu isanc e, a nd the v erd ic t fo rm d id no t allo c ate the d amages aw ard to

ei t h e r t h eo ry sp ec if

ic ally. See C

i ty o f La wren cev i

l le v . Alfo rd , 36 6 Ga. A p p . 226 , 229 (881 SE2d 47 4) (2022) (“ I n the absenc e o f a v erd ic t f o rm requ iring mo re sp ec if ic ity,
the metho d b y w hic h a j u ry reac hes a p artic u lar v erd ic t is no t a matter o f w hic h this
Co u rt can tak e j u d ic ial c ogniz anc e. I f the City had w anted the j u ry to exp lain the basis
f o r t h e d amages aw ard , it sho u ld hav e o bj ec ted to the v erd ic t f orm. It d id no t d o s o and thu s has w aiv e d a ny o bj e c t i o n i n t his regard

. ” ) (c itatio ns and p u nc tu atio n

o mitted ) ; Ga

. C

li n i c v . Sto ut , 323 Ga. A p p . 487 , 49 2 ( 2) (7 47 SE2d 83) (201 3) (w here
the v erd ic t f

o rm d id no t ind ic ate w hic h o f the tw o gro u nd s o f liability the j u ry f o und , this Co urt w o u ld no t qu estio n the v erd ic t).

2. The City next argu e s that the trial c o urt e rred by p ermitting the w itnesses to testif y t o their interp r etatio ns of the C i t y ’ s o rd inanc es bec au se their o p inio ns w ere irrelev a nt, and w itnesses are no t p e rmitted to testif y to s tatu to ry interp retatio n. The Changs resp o nd that the City waiv ed this issu e by elic iting the testim o n y d u r ing its

o w n examinatio n o f

the w itnesses. 1 2 W e c o nc lu d e that any erro r w as harmless.

1 2 The City requ ested a co ntinu ing obj ec tio n to s u c h t e st imo ny, a nd the trial c o u rt agreed

. 18W e rev iew a trial c o u rt’ s ad m i s s i o n of ev id enc e f or abu se o f d isc retio n. MyFa mi lyD o c v . Jo h n s to n , 36 6 Ga. A p p . 459 , 46 4 (2) (883 SE2d 404) (2023).
H o w ev e r , t o b e rev ersible erro r, it is no t eno u gh t hat t he trial c o u rt
e r r ed ; the p laintif

fs also mu st sho w that the e rro r had an ef f ec t o n t h e
o u tc o me of th e p ro ceed ings. Erro neo us ev id e ntiary r u lings are s u bj ec t to the harmless erro r do ctrine, meaning w e may no t rev erse a j u d gment bec au s e o f s u ch an erro r unless r ef u sal t o tak e su c h ac tio n a p p ears to the
c o u rt inc o n s i stent w ith su bstantial j u stic e. W hen w e c o nsid er w hether
an erro r was harmless, w e r ev iew the rec ord d e no v o and w e igh the
ev id enc e as w e w o u ld exp ec t reaso nable j u ro rs to hav e d o ne so . ( Citatio ns and p unc t u atio n o mitted

. ) Ro s s - S tu b b lefi

eld v . W ea kla n d , 359 Ga. Ap p . 52 3 , 527 (859 SE2d 502) (2021 ); s ee also O C G A 2 4

- 1

- 1 03 (a) (“ Erro r shall no t be
p red ic a ted u p on a ru ling w hic h ad mits o r exc lu d es ev id enc e u nless a su bstantial right

o f the p arty is af

fec ted [. ]” ). Pretermitting w hether the City waiv ed t he erro r, w e co nc lu de that any erro r in
the a d missio n o f this testimo ny w as harmless. 1 3 Ro s s - S tu bb lefi

eld , 359 Ga. A p p . at

1 3 I n argu ing t hat t his testimo ny w as p ermissible, the Changs inc o rrec tly f o c u s o n w hether the w itnesses t estif ied to the ultimate issu e; bu t the City argu es that the
w itnesses imp ro p erly gav e op inio ns o n statu to ry interp retatio n. A ltho u gh witnesses may giv e testimo ny as to the f ormer, any testimo ny to the latter is c learly imp ro p er. See Fi rema n ’ s Fu n d In s. C

o . v . H o lder C o n s tr. Gro u

p, LLC , 36 2 G a. A pp . 36 7 , 37 4 (1 ) (b) (86 8 SE2d 485) (2022); see also U n ited Sta tes v . F. E

. B. C o rp. , 52 F 4th 9 1 6 , 9 32
19526

- 527 ; see also Bea u b ru n v . S ta te , 36 3 Ga. A p p . 7 9 8, 7 99 (2) (87 2 SE2d 7 76 ) (2022).

I m p o rtantly, there w as no d isp u te that the p lanter was in the ro a d w ay as that term is
d ef ined by the s tate statu te. The trial c o u rt instru c ted the j u ry that “ a City has a d u ty

to m aintain the p u blic ro ad s o f its mu nic ip al street syste m in a reaso nably saf e

c o nd itio n f

o r t raf f i c . A C i t y d o es no t hav e a d u ty to k eep an a rea o utsid e the p u blic

ro ad s saf e f ro m d ef ec ts w hen the d ef

ec t s d o no t
. . . imp ed e t rav el o n the pu blic ro a d. ”
Rev iew ing the e v id e nc e d e no v o, and v iew ing it as a reaso nable j u ro r w o u ld , w e

c o nc lu d e that the f

ac t t hat the witnesses may hav e o p ined whether the p lanter w as a haz ard that had to be remo v ed u nd er the ord ina n c e s h a d n o imp ac t o n t he j u ry’ s

v erd ic t. Giv en the s tatu to r y d ef i n i tio n o f ro ad w ay, the City emp lo yees’

ac k no w led gment t hat they sho u ld hav e no tic ed and remo v ed the p lanter, and the

o ther ev id enc e regard ing the v ehic le u se o f the sho u ld er, s u c h testimo ny d id no t af f ec t the o u tc o me o f the t r ial. A c c ord ingly, the ad missio n o f this testimo ny w as harmless.
Ro s s - S t ub b lefi eld , 359 Ga. A pp . at 526

- 527

.

C a s e N o . A24 A0803
(I V ) ( B) (1 1 th Cir. 2022) (“ s tatu to ry interp retatio n is a legal qu e s tio n f o r a j u d ge, no t a f ac tu al qu estio n fo r t he trier o f f ac t.
. . W hile exp e rt witnesses may o f f er o p inio ns o n an ‘ u ltimate issu e’ in a c ase, they may no t o f f er ‘ legal c o nc lu sio ns. ’” ) (c itatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).
203. The Changs cro s s- ap p eal f ro m t h e t r ial co u rt’ s f

ailu r e t o aw ard p re- j u d gment interest and to enter its f

inal j u d gment nu nc p ro tu nc to the d ate o f the j u ry’ s v erd ic t.
W e agree w ith bo th argu ments. (a) Pre- j u dgmen t i nteres t
. Und e r OCGA § 51

- 1 2- 1 4, k no w n as the “ U nliqu id ated D amages I nterest A c t,” [w ] here a c laimant has giv en w ritten no tic e by registered o r c e rtif ied mail
o r statu to r y o v ernight d eliv ery to a p erso n against w ho m c laim is mad e
o f a d emand f

o r a n amo u nt o f u nliqu id ated d amages in a to rt ac tio n a nd the p erso n against who m su ch c laim is m ad e fails to p a y su c h a mo u nt
w ithin 30 days fro m t he mailing o r d eliv ering o f the no tic e, the c laimant
s h a ll be entitled to rec eiv e interest o n the amo u nt d emand ed if , u p o n trial
o f t he c ase in w hic h the c laim is mad e, t he j ud gment is fo r an amo u nt no t less than the amo unt d emand ed [. ]
(Emp hasi s s u p p lied

. ) OCGA § 51

- 1 2- 1 4 (a), (e). When a p arty is entitled to p rej u d gment interest u nd er this p ro v isio n, the amo u nt “s h a l l b egin to r u n f ro m the
thirtieth d ay f

o llo w ing the d ate o f the mailing o r d eliv ering o f the w ritten no tic e u ntil

2 1the d ate o f j u d gment. ” 1 4 OCGA § 51

- 1 2- 1 4 (c ). The qu e stio n of p re- ju d gment interest

is f o r the c o u rt rather than the j u ry: E v i d e n c e o r d isc ussio n o f interest o n liqu id ated d amages, as w ell as
ev id enc e o f the of

fer, shall no t be su bmitted to the j u ry. I nterest s ha ll b e
ma de a pa rt o

f the j u d gmen t u p o n p resentatio n o f ev id enc e to the satisf ac tio n o f the c o urt that this Co d e sec t io n has b een co mp lied with and that the verd ic t o f the j u ry o r the a w ard by the j u d ge t r y ing the c ase
w itho u t a j u ry is equ al to o r exc eed s the amo u nt c laimed in the no tic e. (Emp hasis su p plied

. ) OCGA § 51

- 1 2- 1 4 (d ).
The Changs a rgu e that they are entitled to p re- j u d gment interest f ro m M arc h

1 7 , 2023, w hic h w as 30 d ays af ter the d ate o f the last settlement o ff er, u ntil the d a t e

o f the ju ry’ s v e rd ic t o n J une 1 5, 2023. W e mu s t lo o k to t he sta t u t e t o d et e rmine

w hether the trial c o u rt w as requ ired to aw ard p re- j u d gment interest.

Wh e n interp reting p ro v isio ns o f a statu te, su ch as [ OCGA § 5 1- 12

- 1 4], w e mu st p resu me that the General A s sembly meant w hat it said a nd sai d w h a t i t meant. To that e nd , w e mu st af f o rd the statu to ry text its p lain and o rd inary meaning, w e mu st v iew th e statu t ory t e xt in the

1 4 The Changs m ad e s ev en o f f ers to settle the c ase, a ll o f w hic h the City rej ec ted

. The amo u nt o f these o f fers ranged f

ro m $1

. 7 5 m illio n early in t he c ase, to $1 0 millio n j u st bef

o re t rial. A s no ted , the j u ry r etu rned a v erd ic t in the amo u nt o f $35 millio n.
22c o n t e x t in w hic h it ap p ears, and w e mu st read the statu to ry text i n i t s

mo st natu ral and reaso nable w a y , a s an o rd inary sp eak e r o f the English langu age w ou ld

. I f the statu to ry te x t is c lear and u nambigu o u s, w e attribu te to t h e statu te its p lain meaning, and ou r searc h f o r s tatu to ry meaning is at an end

. (Citatio n o m itted

. ) Ca rr v . Yi m , 36 9 Ga. A p p . 389 , 39 2 (89 3 SE2d 801 ) (2023).
The p lain langu age o f the st a t u te u ses the mand ato ry w ord “shall. ” See In re Bla ke , 37 0 Ga. A p p . 6 1 0 , 61 4 (1 ) (89 8 SE2d 6 38) (2024); Ba yli s v . D a rya ni , 2 9 4 Ga.
A p p . 7 29 , 7 30 ( 1 ) ( 6 6 9 SE2d 6 7 4) (2008) ( “ The general ru le is that ‘ shall’ is

rec o gniz ed as a c o mmand , and is mand a to ry. ” ). H ere, t he Changs satisf ied all o f the
p re- requ isites f

o r s eek ing p re- j u d gment i n t e r e st. T hu s, the trial co u rt erred by
im p l i c i tly d enying a n a w a rd o f p re- j ud gment interest, a nd w e v ac ate the entry o f j u d gment, and remand the c ase w ith d irec tio n to aw ard p re- j u d gment interest. (b) N u n c p ro tu n c The Changs then u rge this Co u rt to instru c t the trial c o urt o n remand to enter j u d gment nu nc p r o tu nc t o t h e d at e o f the j u r y’ s v erd ic t u nd er Ta ylo r v . Dev ereu x Fo un da ti o n , 31 6 Ga. 44, 9 5- 96 (I X) (885 SE2d 6 7 1 ) (2023). H e re, the rec ord ref lec ts

23that t he trial c o u rt d id no t enter its j u d gment o n the v erd ic t u ntil 1 2 d ays af ter the j u ry’ s v erd ic t.

“ A t rial c o u rt may enter a j u d gment nu nc p ro tu nc to perf e c t t he rec o rd and
p ro p e rly ref

lec t w hen an o rd er o r j u d gment sho u ld hav e been entered

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

. ) Ta ylo r , 31 6 Ga. at 9 5 (I X).
The general ru le is that nu nc p r o t u n c entries are p ro p er to c o rrec t
c leric al erro rs bu t no t j ud ic ial erro rs. A c leric a l e r ro r inv olv es an erro r o r mistak e mad e by a c lerk o r o ther j ud ic ial o r ministerial o ff ic er in w riting
o r k eep ing r ec o rd s; it d o es no t inc lu d e an e r ro r mad e by the c o u rt itself

. To be c leric al in natu re it mu st b e o ne w hic h is no t the resu lt of j u d ic ial
reaso ning o r d eterminatio n. (Citatio n o mitted .) K/C Ice, LLC v . C o n n e ll , 352 Ga. A p p . 37 6 , 37 9 (2) (835 SE2d 1 1) (201 9 ).
I n o t her w o rd s, [a] c o u rt’ s p o w er t o amend nu n c p r o t unc is the p o w er to c o rrec t inad vertent erro rs o r o m issio ns in the r ec o rd to ref lec t the tru th of w hat hap p ened ; it d o es no t inc lu d e the p o wer t o su p p ly j u d ic ial o missio ns so
as to inc lu d e w h a t a c ou rt might o r sho u ld hav e d ec id e d, bu t d id no t
ac tu ally so dec id e. A c c o rd ingly, the p u rp o se o f entering an o rd er nu nc p ro tu nc is to rec o rd so me p rev io u sly u nrec o rd ed ac tio n a ctu a lly tak en

24o r j u dgment ac tu ally rend ered

. I t may no t be u sed to s u p p ly an o r d e r no t

yet mad e by the c ou rt. (Citatio ns and pu nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) C iti z e n s fo r E thi cs i n Go v t. v . Atla nta Dev

. Au th. , 303 Ga. A p p . 7 24, 7 34 (2) (6 9 4 SE2d 6 80) (201 0).
A s o ur Su p reme Co u rt’ s d ec isio n in Ta ylo r d ic t ates, the trial co u rt sho u ld hav e entered j u d gment nu nc p r o tu nc to the date o f t he j u ry’ s v e r d i c t. 31 6 Ga. at 9 5- 9 6 (I X); s ee also W

i n ga te La n d & Dev

. v . Ro b ert C

. W a l ker, In c. , 252 Ga. A p p. 81 8, 822 (5) (558 SE2d 13) (2001 ) (trial c o u rt had a u tho rity to enter j u d gment nu nc p ro tu nc

ev en tho u gh f

inal j u d gment w as entered almo st a year af ter th e j u ry’ s v erd ic t).
A c c o rd ingly, o n remand , t he trial c o u rt is d irec ted to enter j u d gment nu nc p ro tu nc

to the d ate o f

the j u ry’ s v e rd ic t
. Ju dgmen t affi

rmed i n Ca s e N o . A24 A0802. Ju dgmen t v a ca ted a n d ca s e rema n ded
wi th di recti on i n C a s e N o . A24 A0803. Mi

ller, P. J. , a n d La n d, J. , co n cu r .

25