Emma McClarty v. Trigild Incorporated
333 Ga. App. 112
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Emma McClarty sued Trigild Inc. after a motel ceiling collapsed, injuring her; a jury returned a verdict for Trigild and the trial court entered judgment.
- McClarty propounded requests for admission under OCGA § 9-11-36; four requests (Nos. 26, 29, 30, 31) and Trigild’s responses are central to the appeal.
- Request 26 asked Trigild to admit the ceiling condition was hazardous; Trigild denied actual and constructive knowledge of any hazardous condition.
- Request 29 asked Trigild to admit it did not warn McClarty of the condition; Trigild initially denied knowledge but the trial court allowed a qualified admission that it had not warned (while denying knowledge).
- Requests 30 and 31 admitted obligations that Trigild would have had to fix or to warn if it had known of the condition; Trigild also reiterated it denied knowledge.
- McClarty moved to determine sufficiency of responses; the trial court ruled Request 26 was inappropriate (did not rule on sufficiency), deemed Request 29 admitted subject to explanation, and the case proceeded to trial where certain evidence was introduced that McClarty argued conflicted with the admissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Request 26 was an appropriate request for admission and whether the trial court erred by refusing to rule on the sufficiency of Trigild’s response | McClarty: Request 26 was proper (may invite opinion/legal conclusion tied to facts) and Trigild’s denial did not fairly meet its substance; trial court should have ruled on sufficiency under OCGA § 9-11-36(a)(3) | Trigild: Response denied knowledge; trial court deemed the request inappropriate | Court: Request 26 was permissible; trial court erred by not determining sufficiency. Judgment vacated and remanded for that determination. |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by permitting Trigild to convert its denial to a qualified admission on Request 29 | McClarty: Qualification improperly alters the admission and prejudices her case | Trigild: Denial of knowledge is compatible with admitting it did not warn; qualification allowed when good faith requires and trial court has discretion | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court permissibly allowed a qualified admission and explanation. |
| Whether Trigild was precluded from introducing trial evidence that allegedly contradicted its admissions to Requests 29–31 | McClarty: Admissions are conclusively established under OCGA § 9-11-36(b); conflicting evidence should have been excluded even without contemporaneous objection | Trigild: Any objection was waived by McClarty; evidence addressed a different factual point (whether drywall hit McClarty) | Court: No conflict; the trial evidence did not contradict admissions (which concerned warnings/obligations), so no reversible error. |
| Remedy and effect on judgment | McClarty: Errors require reversal of the judgment | Trigild: Only harmless or non-reversible errors exist | Court: Vacated judgment and remanded only because trial court failed to rule on Request 26 sufficiency; if sufficiency upheld, judgment may be reentered; if not, further proceedings ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- G. H. Bass & Co. v. Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 268 Ga. 327 (requests for admission may seek opinions or legal conclusions so long as they relate to case facts)
- Brown v. Morton, 274 Ga. App. 208 (requests for admission that involve conclusions tied to facts are permissible)
- Wellstar Health Sys. v. Green, 258 Ga. App. 86 (trial court has discretion to determine sufficiency and disposition of requests for admission)
- Fox Run Props. v. Murray, 288 Ga. App. 568 (discussing conclusiveness of matters admitted under OCGA § 9-11-36)
- Pulte Home Corp. v. Woodland Nursery & Landscapes, 230 Ga. App. 455 (trial reversal warranted where party’s trial evidence contradicted its admission about contract formation)