Petty v. Barrett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Petty v. Barrett

369 S.E.2d 294, 187 Ga. App. 83

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 21, 1988

Docket75986

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 369 S.E.2d 294 (Petty v. Barrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Petty v. Barrett, 369 S.E.2d 294, 187 Ga. App. 83 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Pope, Judge.

The question presented by this case, to wit, whether OCGA § 51-12-1 (b) is to be given retroactive effect to events predating its enactment in a trial following its enactment, was recently addressed in Polito v. Holland, 258 Ga. 54 (365 SE2d 273) (1988), wherein the Supreme Court, reasoning that this section works a substantive change in the law governing collateral benefits, held that it was to be given prospective effect only. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court denying plaintiff’s motion in limine and allowing such evidence to be admitted in the present case must be reversed.

It does not follow, however, that a new trial is necessary on all aspects of this case. The record shows that the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and awarded her $5,000 for pain and suffering. The only other damages sought by plaintiff were for medical expenses. It is obvious that the erroneous admission of evidence concerning collateral benefits could have affected the jury’s decision on plaintiff’s right to recover these latter damages although such evidence would be immaterial on the issue of plaintiff’s entitlement to damages for pain and suffering. Consequently, we hold that the new trial in this case should be limited to the issue of plaintiff’s right to recover for medical expenses incurred as the result of her injury. See generally Clark v. Wright, 137 Ga. App. 720 (2) (224 SE2d 825) (1976).

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

McMurray, P. J., and Benham, J., concur. *84 John T. Newton, Jr., for appellant. Samuel A. Murray, for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pope, Judge.

The question presented by this case, to wit, whether OCGA § 51-12-1 (b) is to be given retroactive effect to events predating its enactment in a trial following its enactment, was recently addressed in Polito v. Holland, 258 Ga. 54 (365 SE2d 273) (1988), wherein the Supreme Court, reasoning that this section works a substantive change in the law governing collateral benefits, held that it was to be given prospective effect only. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court denying plaintiff’s motion in limine and allowing such evidence to be admitted in the present case must be reversed.

It does not follow, however, that a new trial is necessary on all aspects of this case. The record shows that the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and awarded her $5,000 for pain and suffering. The only other damages sought by plaintiff were for medical expenses. It is obvious that the erroneous admission of evidence concerning collateral benefits could have affected the jury’s decision on plaintiff’s right to recover these latter damages although such evidence would be immaterial on the issue of plaintiff’s entitlement to damages for pain and suffering. Consequently, we hold that the new trial in this case should be limited to the issue of plaintiff’s right to recover for medical expenses incurred as the result of her injury. See generally Clark v. Wright, 137 Ga. App. 720 (2) (224 SE2d 825) (1976).

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

McMurray, P. J., and Benham, J., concur. *84 John T. Newton, Jr., for appellant. Samuel A. Murray, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 S.E.2d 294, 187 Ga. App. 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petty-v-barrett-gactapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack