Stolte v. Fagan, 291 Ga. 477

Stolte and Ross sued Dr. Fagan for medical malpractice alleging negligent severing of Stolte’s lingual nerve during a wisdom tooth extraction.
Five-day trial ended with a defense verdict; Stolte moved for a new trial, which was denied.
Stolte challenged the trial court’s juror-qualification rulings, claiming four jurors were biased in favor of medical professionals or against plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases.
Stolte also challenged closing arguments suggesting that Dr. Fagan’s reputation and trust of patients could influence the verdict, and the court’s handling of those remarks.
Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Stolte failed to show harm from the alleged juror-bias and deemed some objections to closing arguments waived.
This Court granted certiorari to address (1) the harmless-error standard for refusal to strike an unqualified juror in civil cases and (2) the trial court’s duty under OCGA § 9-10-185 to remedy prejudicial counsel statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Harris applies to civil cases for harmless error when a juror is not struck for cause	Stolte argues Harris applies to civil cases as well as criminal.	Fagan argues Harris should not extend to civil cases.	Yes; Harris applies to civil cases.
Whether the trial court must remedy prejudicial argument after an objection even without a specific remedial request	Stolte contends the court erred by not remedying after objection.	Fagan contends remedial action need not be automatic absent a request.	Trial court must take corrective action upon objection.
Whether contemporaneous objections are required for improper closing remarks to preserve review of those remarks	Stolte argues timely objection is required for preservation.	Fagan argues timely objection is unnecessary for preservation in civil cases.	Contemporaneous objections are required for some remarks; untimeliness affects review.
Whether the closing-argument issue should be reviewed on remand given untimely objections	Stolte seeks full merits review on remand.	Fagan seeks limited or no reversal due to timeliness.	Remand for permissible review under correct standards; remedy required if improper argument could have affected verdict.

Harris v. State, 255 Ga. 464 (1986) (criminal-harms rule without exhausting strikes)
Wallace v. State, 275 Ga. 879 (2002) (civil applicability of Harris rule)
Guoth v. Hamilton, 273 Ga. App. 435 (2005) (Harris rule not expressly applied to civil cases)
O’Neal v. State, 288 Ga. 219 (2010) (OCGA analogue to 9-10-185; trial courts must remedy improper argument on objection)
Garner v. Victory Express, Inc., 264 Ga. 171 (1994) (courts should remedy improper argument even if not requested)
Dascombe v. Hanley, 270 Ga. App. 355 (2004) (reversal not allowed when remedy not requested)
Strickland v. Stubbs, 218 Ga. App. 279 (1995) (concerning improper closing argument review)
Mullins v. Thompson, 274 Ga. 366 (2001) (timeliness of objections to improper argument)
Moxley v. Moxley, 281 Ga. 326 (2006) (untimely objections and standard for reversible error)
Hamilton v. Shumpert, 299 Ga. App. 137 (2009) (timeliness of objections to closing argument)
Telcom Cost Consulting, Inc. v. Warren, 275 Ga. App. 830 (2005) (continuing objection requirement)
Steele v. Atlanta Maternal-Fetal Medicine, 271 Ga. App. 622 (2005) (reversal for failure to remedy improper argument)