A nеw trial was granted to plaintiff Austin following a defendants’ verdict and judgment in this product liability action stemming from injuries allegedly sustained by Austin when he fell from a chair manufactured by U. S. Industries and sold by Allied. The new trial was granted sоlely on the basis that under
Polito v. Holland,
1. The first grant of a nеw trial on the general grounds will ordinarily not be disturbed by the appellate court absent an abuse of discretion in that the evidence demanded the verdict rendered. See OCGA §§ 5-5-50; 5-5-51, and
Dunn v. Gilbert,
2. Austin’s fall allegedly ocсurred on or about December 24,1983, suit was filed on June 14, 1985, and the trial was in Jаnuary 1988. As in
Polito v. Holland,
supra, which was decided in March 1988, the
*75
new substantive collateral source rule became еffective after suit was filed and before trial. But “denial of [Austin’s] motion in liminе, the admission of collateral source evidence . . . , and the giving of the collateral source charge was error, as the collateral source rule of OCGA § 51-12-1 (b), which became effeсtive July 1, 1987, cannot be given retroactive effect and opеrates prospectively only.
Powell v. Stephens,
OCGA § 9-11-61 precludes а new trial unless the refusal to grant one “appears to the сourt inconsistent with substantial justice.”
Although the court’s order of January 1989 granting the new trial stated that the admission into evidence of collateral payments and instruction to the jury in this regard were so prejudiсial and harmful so as to affect the verdict, the court did not explain how this was so. The record denies the presence of any prejudice or harm. The court’s collateral source charge expressly confined the jury’s consideration of the cоllateral source evidence to its determination of the. amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. Under the court’s limiting instructions, the collateral source evidence did not weigh intо the jury’s deliberations because it never reached the questiоn of damages; it found defendants not liable, so damage issues beсame moot. The court had also clearly instructed the jury: “Obviously, before you consider damages, you must first determine the liability of the defendant.” As noted in Malloy, we will not “speculate that the jury would ignore the limited purpose for which the collateral source evidenсe was admitted and would consider it in determining the question of liability.”
“ ‘It is well-settled that “the giving of a charge . . . or . . . the admission or exclusion of еvidence, which go only to the matters of damages or the measure of damages, are harmless and afford no ground for reversal where a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant.” ’ [Cits.]” Id. at 565. See also
Reliford v. Central of Ga. R. Co.,
The absence of prejudice or harm from the errоr which prompted the grant of new trial rendered it erroneous as a matter of law; plaintiff was not entitled to retrial on that basis.
3. The foregoing makes it unnecessary to address the remaining enumerations of error.
Judgment reversed.