Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford

481 S.E.2d 6, 224 Ga. App. 187, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 86, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 6
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 3, 1997
DocketA95A0465, A95A0466; A95A0467; A95A0468, A95A0469; A95A0470
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 481 S.E.2d 6 (Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford) 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
Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford, 481 S.E.2d 6, 224 Ga. App. 187, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 86, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 6 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Andrews, Chief Judge.

In Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford, 218 Ga. App. 248 (461 SE2d 877) (1995), we reversed on various grounds a judgment in favor of Franklin Ford III (Ford) for compensatory and punitive damages and a judgment in favor of Ford’s parents for compensatory damages. On review pursuant to the writ of certiorari in Ford v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 267 Ga. 226 (476 SE2d 565) (1996), the Supreme Court partially reversed and partially affirmed our prior decision.

In partially reversing our decision, the Supreme Court held that “OCGA § 9-11-42 (a) applies to simultaneous proceedings before separate juries in the same courtroom . . . [and] the trial court committed reversible error in ordering a dual jury trial without the consent of the parties. . . .” In partially affirming our decision, the Supreme Court affirmed our majority holding that instructing the jury in Ford’s case that 75 percent of punitive damages sought would be distributed to the State was reversible error. Accordingly, to the extent our prior decision was reversed by the Supreme Court, it is vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court.

The Supreme Court did not review any other aspect of our prior decision. Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments on the grounds it addressed and let stand our prior decision on other grounds it did not address, including our reversal of the judgments on other grounds in Case Nos. A95A0465, A95A0466, A95A0468, and [188]*188A95A0469 and our dismissal of the cross-appeals in Case Nos. A95A0467 and A95A0470.

Decided January 3, 1997. Love & Willingham, Daryll Love, Allen S. Willingham, Robert P. Monyak, Alston & Bird, G. Conley Ingram, R. Wayne Thorpe, Cynthia L. Counts, for Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company et al. Smolar, Roseman, Brantley & Seifter, Yehuda Smolar, Barry L. Roseman, G. Grant Brantley, James I. Seifter, Thomas A. Rice, William B. Herndon, for Ford et al. Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, Roy E. Barnes, Elliott & Blackburn, Thomas W. Elliott, Walter G. Elliott II, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, Richard B. North, Jr., Neely & Player, Lorre J. Gaudiosi, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hayes & Handler, Terrence B. Adamson, Brinson, Askew, Berry, Seigler, Richardson & Davis, Robert M. Brinson, amici curiae.

Judgments reversed in Case Nos. A95A0465, A95A0466, A95A0468, and A95A0469.

Birdsong, P. J, and Beasley, J., concur. Pope, P. J., Johnson, Smith and Ruffin, JJ., concur specially. McMurray, P. J., concurs in the judgments only. Blackburn, J., not participating. Appeals dismissed in Case Nos. A95A0467 and A95A0470. Birdsong, P. J., Pope, P. J., Beasley, Johnson, Smith and Ruffin, JJ., concur. McMurray, P. J., concurs in the judgments only. Blackburn, J., not participating.

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

Related

Ford v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.
514 S.E.2d 201 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999)
Ford v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.
497 S.E.2d 596 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
481 S.E.2d 6, 224 Ga. App. 187, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 86, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uniroyal-goodrich-tire-co-v-ford-gactapp-1997.