Park v. Nichols
307 Ga. App. 841
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Seung C. Park, intoxicated, ran a red light and caused fatal injuries to Stacey Camacho and injuries to her son; Park pled guilty to homicide by vehicle.
- Jury awarded Camacho's estate $715,000 for pain and suffering and Camacho's surviving spouse $5,115,000 for wrongful death; Park admitted liability only damages issue remained.
- Voir dire included questioning about Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, with concerns about reinjecting insurance topics into the trial.
- Defense moved for mistrial over insurance reinjection; trial court denied mistrial but instructed counsel to refrain from referring to insurance.
- Park challenged damages for pain and suffering, asserting conflict with witness testimony that Camacho was unconscious shortly after the crash.
- Park argued the court should have given a requested instruction limiting wrongful death damages by excluding emotional distress of plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reinjection of insurance during voir dire was reversible error | Park argues improper reinjection biased jury. | Park contends trial court failed to prevent prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; corrective measures adequate. |
| Whether the damages for pain and suffering were properly supported | Evidence showed Camacho was conscious enough to experience pain. | Evidence supports jury’s pain-and-suffering award; not erroneous as a matter of law. | Sufficient evidence supported the jury verdict; no reversible error. |
| Whether the trial court should have given a requested wrongful death instruction | Instruction excluding plaintiff’s emotional distress was required. | Charge given adequately conveyed damages framework. | No error; court substantially covered the relevant principles. |
| Whether the verdict was clearly against the weight of the evidence | Damages were excessive given the evidence. | Discretion to grant new trial rests with trial court; evidence supports verdict. | Court did not disturb the trial court’s discretionary decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dubose v. Ross, 222 Ga.App. 99, 473 S.E.2d 179 (1996) (mistrial not automatic; discretion-based ruling on prejudice)
- Leonard v. Miller, 207 Ga. App. 602, 428 S.E.2d 646 (1993) (additional voir dire about insurance permissible when relevance shown)
- Parsons v. Harrison, 133 Ga.App. 280, 211 S.E.2d 128 (1974) (permitted broader voir dire on insurance under circumstances)
- Defusco v. Free, 287 Ga.App. 313, 651 S.E.2d 458 (2007) (insistence on voir dire limits; mistrial not automatic)
- Gonzalez v. Wells, 213 Ga.App. 494, 445 S.E.2d 332 (1994) (counsel prohibited from repeating court's order; no abuse)
- Beam v. Kingsley, 255 Ga.App. 715, 566 S.E.2d 437 (2002) (presumption of correctness for verdict when disfavoring new-trial grounds)
- Alexie, Inc. v. Old South Bottle Shop Corp., 179 Ga.App. 190, 345 S.E.2d 875 (1986) (charge coverage suffices when requested instruction is substantially covered)
- Glenridge Unit Owners Assn. v. Felton, 183 Ga.App. 858, 360 S.E.2d 418 (1987) (grants/denials of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Parris Properties, LLC v. Nichols, 305 Ga. App. 734, 700 S.E.2d 848 (2010) (standard for reviewing discretionary rulings on motions)