Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesattorneystatuteappealtrialverdictmotionmalpracticelegal malpracticemotion for new trial
damagesstatutetrialverdictmotionmotion for new trial

Related Cases

White v. Moreno Valley Unified School Dist., 181 Cal.App.3d 1024, 226 Cal.Rptr. 742, 32 Ed. Law Rep. 691
View Case »
Vanderbilt University v. DiNardo, 174 F.3d 751, 134 Ed. Law Rep. 766, 14 IER Cases 1702, 1999 Fed.App. 0135P
View Case »
U.S. v. Remini, 967 F.2d 754
View Case »
MV Transp., Inc. v. Allgeier, 433 S.W.3d 324
View Case »
Perez v. Z Frank Oldsmobile, Inc., 223 F.3d 617
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Spence v. Maurice H. Hilliard, Jr., P.C., 260 Ga. 107, 389 S.E.2d 753

Facts

Pat Spence brought a legal malpractice action against attorneys Hilliard and Raeburn. The jury returned a verdict awarding no actual damages but $58,000 in minimal damages. Hilliard and Raeburn filed a motion for a new trial or to modify the verdict. The trial judge denied the motion for a new trial but reduced the damage award to $300, citing OCGA § 51–12–12. Spence appealed, arguing that the judge misinterpreted the statute or that the statute was unconstitutional.

Hilliard and Raeburn filed a motion for new trial or to modify the verdict. The judge denied the motion for new trial, but, relying on OCGA § 51–12–12, he reduced the award of damages to $300.

Issue

Whether OCGA § 51–12–12 authorizes the trial judge to reduce a jury's damage award.

The first issue presented is whether OCGA § 51–12–12 authorizes the trial judge to reduce a jury's damage award.

Rule

OCGA § 51–12–12 provides that the question of damages is ordinarily for the jury, and the court should not interfere unless the damages are clearly inadequate or excessive. The trial court may order a new trial as to damages only or conditionally grant a new trial, but it does not authorize a judge to reduce a damage award while denying a motion for new trial.

OCGA § 51–12–12 provides in part as follows: (a) The question of damages is ordinarily one for the jury; and the court should not interfere with the jury's verdict unless the damages awarded by the jury are clearly so inadequate or excessive as to be inconsistent with the preponderance of the evidence in the case.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of OCGA § 51–12–12 and concluded that it provides three options for a trial judge when faced with a clearly inadequate or excessive jury award: grant a new trial, grant a new trial as to damages only, or conditionally grant a new trial. The court emphasized that all options involve granting a motion for new trial and that the statute does not permit a judge to reduce a damage award while denying a new trial.

Under this provision of the statute, the trial judge calculates an appropriate damage award. The parties then have an opportunity to accept the trial court's award and end the case, or reject it and proceed with a new trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order denying the motion for new trial and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its interpretation of OCGA § 51–12–12.

The order of the trial court denying the motion for new trial is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the motion in light of this court's interpretation of OCGA § 51–12–12.

Who won?

Pat Spence prevailed in the appeal because the Supreme Court found that the trial judge exceeded his authority by reducing the damage award without granting a new trial.

The Supreme Court held that statute authorizing trial judge to grant motion for new trial if damage award is inadequate did not give judge authority to reduce damage award and deny motion for new trial.

You must be