Emma McClarty v. Trigild Incorporated
339 Ga. App. 691
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- This is the second appearance of a premises liability case involving McClarty and Trigild Incorporated in Georgia Court of Appeals.
- In 2015, we vacated a jury verdict for Trigild and remanded to determine the sufficiency of Trigild’s response to a request for admission concerning a hazardous condition.
- On remand, the trial court found Trigild’s response insufficient and ordered that the matter be admitted under OCGA § 9-11-36, but it reentered the prior jury verdict against McClarty instead of permitting further proceedings.
- OCGA § 9-11-36 makes an admission conclusively established unless withdrawn or amended by court order; such admissions must be considered as substantive evidence.
- The trial court’s reentry of the judgment effectively withdrew Trigild’s admission from the jury’s consideration and prevented McClarty from arguing its conclusive effect.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals held the trial court’s action harmful and reversed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reentry of judgment after admission was proper | McClarty argues the admission should have been considered and not withdrawn from the jury. | Trigild contends the court properly reapplied the prior verdict. | Reentry was improper; admission must remain for jury consideration. |
| Whether an OCGA 9-11-36 admission is binding evidence | Admission is binding and conclusive, requiring no additional proof. | Admission’s evidentiary impact could be controlled by court rules. | Admission is binding and conclusively established unless withdrawn. |
| Whether the error was harmless | Preventing argument on the admission prejudiced McClarty by omitting the conclusive effect from jury consideration. | Evidence of a hazardous condition was already in the record and the error was harmless. | Error was not harmless; it affected the trial outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vis v. Harris, 329 Ga. App. 129 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (trial court error in preventing argument on admissions not harmless)
- Jackson v. Nemdegelt, Inc., 302 Ga. App. 767 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (judicial admission treatment; cannot be contradicted)
- Piedmont Aviation v. Washington, 181 Ga. App. 730 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987) (distinguishes conclusive judicial admission from other evidence)
- Vaughn v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 260 Ga. App. 573 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (conclusive admission and its effect on burden of proof)
- Vis v. Harris, 329 Ga. App. 129 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (reiterated principle on harms of excluding conclusive admissions)
- Jabaley v. Jabaley, 208 Ga. App. 179 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (conclusive nature of judicial admission relieves need for evidence)
- Pulte Home Corp. v. Woodland Nursery & Landscapes, 230 Ga. App. 455 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (contrast between conclusive admission and other evidence)
- Taylor v. Thunderbird Lanes, 324 Ga. App. 167 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013) (premises liability burden includes proving hazardous condition)