Court Opinion

ID: 9848863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:28:49.856568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:50.478945
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
concurring specially.
I fully concur in the result reached by the majority and in Divisions 1 (b) through 6. I write specially because I cannot concur fully with the majority’s analysis in Division 1 (a). In my view, regardless of what Dr. Stevick answered, his answer would have been cumulative, because both sides presented testimony going to this issue. Nevertheless, I agree that the hypothetical posed to Dr. Stevick and excluded by the trial court went to an aspect of the case that was “highly contested and vital,” Hyles v. Cockrill, 169 Ga. App. 132, 140 (312 SE2d 124) (1983), and the case therefore must be remanded for a new trial.