Harper v. Barge Air Conditioning, Inc.
313 Ga. App. 474
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Harper sued Barge Air Conditioning, Inc. after brain damage from carbon monoxide exposure at AutoZone, asserting vicarious liability.
- This is a retrial following a prior reversal of a directed verdict in Barge's favor; Harper previously prevailed on some issues on appeal but not on liability.
- Harper claimed two jurors should have been struck for cause due to bias in favor of Barge based on personal/professional ties to counsel.
- Harper also argued that Barge tainted the jury pool by asking a collateral-source question implying Harper had already been compensated.
- The trial court denied both motions to strike for cause and Harper’s request for a new panel; a verdict for Barge followed.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, holding for a new trial on both voir dire issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurors 30 and 32 should have been struck for cause | Harper contends bias due to relationships with opposing counsel. | Barge contends bias was not fixed; rehabilitative questioning sufficed. | Abuse of discretion; errors require new trial |
| Whether the panel was tainted by a collateral-source question during voir dire | Question implied Harper received workers' compensation, tainting jurors. | Voir dire on collateral sources permissible in context of general claims. | Reversed; remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Remillard v. Longstreet Clinic, P.C., 267 Ga. App. 230 (2004) (adequate voir dire required for biased jurors)
- Bennett v. Mullally, 263 Ga. App. 215 (2004) (new trial proper when court failed to adequately voir dire bias)
- Clack-Rylee v. Auffarth, 273 Ga. App. 859 (2005) (bias requires more than talismanic questions; need targeted inquiry)
- Kim v. Walls, 275 Ga. 177 (2002) (limits on rehabilitating biased jurors; trial court must address impartiality)
- Guoth v. Hamilton, 273 Ga. App. 435 (2005) (reversals when panel prejudice cannot be remedied by rehabilitation)
- Yale v. Stapleton Corp., 377 F. App’x 839 (2010) (workers' compensation questions context; not inherently prejudicial)