WILLIAMS v. HARVEY
311 Ga. 439
Ga.2021Background
- Williams, a 67‑year‑old, suffered severe traumatic brain injury and other injuries after Harvey, an Oxford Construction employee, rear‑ended his tractor; Williams required 24‑hour care and experts produced life‑care and damages valuations (special damages roughly $2.0–$3.38M; medicals ≈ $1.15M).
- Defendants conceded liability; during opening and closings the parties offered competing damage ranges; jury returned an $18 million verdict; judgment after setoff and prejudgment interest totaled ~$12.57M plus interest.
- Defendants moved in limine (item 33) to exclude any statements "predominantly to overly inflame the emotions of the jury"; the trial court reserved ruling as to some items but stated such inflammatory arguments were prohibited.
- In closing, plaintiff’s counsel used a phrase comparing the memory‑care option to a "death warrant." Defendants did not object contemporaneously at trial but later moved for new trial alleging motion‑in‑limine violations; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the motion in limine preserved the objection for appeal even without a contemporaneous objection. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve alleged violations of a granted motion in limine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve for appeal an argument that allegedly violates a ruled‑on motion in limine | Motion in limine ruling suffices to preserve the issue; no need to object again | A contemporaneous objection is required so the trial court can remediate the alleged violation | A contemporaneous objection is required for argument and evidence when a ruled‑on motion in limine is allegedly violated; extend OCGA § 24‑1‑103 principles to argument; overrule contrary Court of Appeals precedent |
| Whether appellate courts may review unpreserved closing‑argument errors in civil cases under the Mullins/Stolte "reasonable probability changed result" standard | Appellate review should be available even without contemporaneous objection | Civil defendants should not get broader review rights than criminal defendants; contemporaneous objection required | Overruled Mullins, Stolte, and related cases to the extent they permit appellate review of unpreserved closing‑argument errors in civil cases; no such review absent timely objection |
| Whether the defendants’ omnibus motion in limine (item 33) was sufficiently definite to preserve an objection to the closing remark | The in limine order barred inflammatory argument and preserved the issue for appeal | The motion was too vague and overbroad to preserve a particular objection absent context and timely objection | The motion was overly broad and vague; a motion in limine must be narrowly tailored; trial court did not abuse discretion in finding no violation |
| Application to this case — did failure to object waive appellate review and did the Court of Appeals err in reversing? | Williams: failure to object waived any claim; Court of Appeals erred | Defendants: Court of Appeals correctly reversed on preserved limine error | The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals: defendants waived appellate review by not contemporaneously objecting and the trial court did not abuse discretion on the limine ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Harley‑Davidson Motor Co. v. Daniel, 244 Ga. 284 (judicial ruling on motion in limine need not be renewed when denied)
- Reno v. Reno, 249 Ga. 855 (same principle applied where motion in limine was granted)
- Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Swindle, 260 Ga. 685 (discussed context of improper argument but did not support motion‑in‑limine preservation for argument)
- Mullins v. Thompson, 274 Ga. 366 (applied death‑penalty objection standard to civil cases; overruled to extent it allowed review of unpreserved argument)
- Stolte v. Fagan, 291 Ga. 477 (followed Mullins; overruled insofar as it permits appellate review of unpreserved closing‑argument errors in civil cases)
- ML Healthcare Svcs., LLC v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 881 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir.) (interpreting Fed. R. Evid. 103 and Advisory Committee Note: when a ruling is changed or violated, contemporaneous objection required)
- Cephus v. CSX Transp., Inc., [citation="771 F. App'x 883"] (11th Cir.) (requirement of contemporaneous objection to alleged limine violation during closing argument)