McDowell v. Hartzog, 292 Ga. 300

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding appellants failed to preserve their objection to a jury instruction.
Appellants Hershell and Cindy McDowell sued Gregory Hartzog and his employer after a traffic collision involving a possible stoplight violation.
Hartzog requested a charge on failure to obey a traffic signal; the trial judge, after a conference, agreed to give it because it was attuned to the evidence.
During the charge conference, counsel stated the objection was noted 'over my objection'; after trial, counsel again excepted to the instruction.
The jury returned a defense verdict; appellants argued the traffic-signal instruction was not supported by the evidence, and that the court erred in giving it; the Court of Appeals held the issue waived for appellate review.
The Supreme Court held the objection was properly preserved and reversed, remanding for consideration of the enumerated error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the objection to the traffic-signal instruction preserved?	McDowell preserved objection at charge conference and again after the charge.	Hartzog contends the objection was not preserved because no explicit post-charge restatement was made.	Objection preserved; reversal and remand.
Does an objection need to be restated after the charge to preserve it?	McDowell's pre-charge objection suffices if the court understood the grounds.	A restatement after the charge is required to preserve the issue.	No formal restatement required; grounds need only be clearly understood.
Was appellants’ additional legal theory that the stoplight could not be a proximate cause preserved?	Plaintiff asserted the charge was improper as a matter of law.	Waived because not raised in the trial court.	Waived; not preserved for appellate review.

Christiansen v. Robertson, 237 Ga. 711 (Ga. 1976) (objection must be distinctly stated; non-formal requirement)
Continental Cas. Co. v. Union Camp Corp., 230 Ga. 8 (Ga. 1973) (objections at charge conference do not preserve issues)
Dent v. Memorial Hosp. of Adel, 270 Ga. 316 (Ga. 1998) (pre-charge objections understood and can preserve error)
Clemons v. Atlanta Neurological Institute, 192 Ga. App. 399 (Ga. App. 1989) (record shows understood objections and preserved issue)
Morey v. Dixie Lime & Stone Co., 134 Ga. App. 928 (Ga. App. 1975) (substantial understanding suffices for preservation)
Golden Peanut Co. v. Bass, 249 Ga. App. 224 (Ga. App. 2001) (after charge, form should not override substance of objection)
Christie v. Rainmaster Irrigation, 299 Ga. App. 383 (Ga. App. 2009) (specificity requirement satisfied when grounds stated at conference)