MORRISON Et Al. v. KICKLIGHTER
329 Ga. App. 630
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Charles, Suzette, and Thomas Morrison sued Steve Kicklighter after he negligently backed into their parked truck, seeking repair costs, diminished value, and rental-car costs.
- The Morrisons also asserted a potential third-party bad-faith claim under OCGA § 33-4-7 against Kicklighter’s insurer (State Farm) but that claim is stayed/hidden from the jury unless a damages verdict meets or exceeds the pre-trial demand.
- At trial Kicklighter admitted liability; the only contested issue in phase one was the dollar amount of the three categories of property damage.
- The Morrisons presented evidence of the amounts they claimed; Kicklighter presented lower amounts but did not deny liability.
- The jury returned a verdict for Kicklighter (no damages). The trial court denied the Morrisons’ motion for a new trial; the Morrisons appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the verdict lacked any evidentiary support and discussing evidentiary rulings likely to recur on retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury verdict for defendant (no damages) had any evidentiary support | Morrisons: undisputed liability and evidence of damages required setting aside verdict | Kicklighter: offered competing, lower damage figures supporting verdict | Court: Verdict lacked any evidentiary support and was contrary to law; reversed and new trial ordered |
| Admissibility of industry/manufacturer repair standards | Morrisons: standards admissible when identified/explained by expert; not hearsay | Kicklighter: documents are hearsay and inadmissible | Court: Trial court erred in excluding the standards; they are admissible when explained by expert |
| Admissibility of testimony from a repair-shop employee about specific repairs | Morrisons: allow testimony that certain repairs were reasonable/necessary | Kicklighter: employee lacked personal knowledge; testimony hearsay | Court: No error excluding such testimony when witness lacked personal knowledge |
| Qualification of State Farm witness to opine on diminished value | Morrisons: witness unqualified to give expert diminished-value opinion | Kicklighter: witness qualified; Morrisons opened door by cross-examining him earlier | Court: No error admitting witness—Morrisons opened the door by calling him earlier |
| Pretrial motion to impeach State Farm employees about employer bias | Morrisons: should be allowed to cross-examine about State Farm employment to show bias | Kicklighter: existence of insurance irrelevant in phase one and must be hidden from jury under OCGA § 33-4-7(d) | Court: No abuse of discretion in limiting cross-examination to avoid revealing insurance; bias may be explored by other non-insurance means |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Huff, 274 Ga. 186 (App. Ct.) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial on general grounds)
- Drake v. State, 241 Ga. 583 (Ga. 1978) (same standard discussed)
- Dayoub v. Yates-Astro Termite Pest Control Co., 239 Ga. App. 578 (1999) (industry standards admissible when identified/explained by expert)
- Southeast Transport Corp. v. Hogan Livestock Co., 133 Ga. App. 825 (1975) (insurance evidence generally excluded to avoid prejudice)
- McClellan v. Evans, 294 Ga. App. 595 (2008) (trial court’s discretion in limiting testimony/cross-examination)
- Vol Repairs II, Inc. v. Knighten, 322 Ga. App. 416 (2013) (procedural support for excluding insurance evidence during first phase)