Ashley v. Goss Bros. Trucking
| Decision Date | 18 May 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S98G0039.,S98G0039. |
| Parties | ASHLEY v. GOSS BROS. TRUCKING, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jason Alan Craig, Salter & Shook, Vidalia, for Regina Ashley.
Richard Scott Thompson, McNatt, Greene & Thompson, Vidalia, for Goss Brothers Trucking et al.
The car driven by appellant Regina Ashley was involved in a collision on October 12, 1994 with a tractor-trailer truck driven by appellee Kenneth Ray Gaylor and owned by appellee Goss Brothers Trucking. Ashley filed a negligence suit against the trucking company, its driver, and its insurer, Canal Insurance Company, pursuant to OCGA § 46-7-1 et seq. During cross-examination of one of the trucking company's owners, Ashley's counsel established the existence of the company's liability insurance policy with Canal as is required in a direct action against the insurer under OCGA § 46-7-12(e). Counsel's next question, however, queried whether that policy was a "one million dollar policy?" Before the owner could answer, opposing counsel objected to the admissibility of the policy limit and moved for a mistrial since evidence of the policy limit was improperly placed before the jury. The trial court sustained the objection but, since the question had not been answered, denied the motion for mistrial and admonished the jury to disregard the question itself as well as the amount of liability insurance involved, as both were irrelevant to the case before them. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ashley and awarded her $107,000 in damages. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, finding the amount of the insurance policy and the trucking company's wealth and ability to pay was improperly injected into evidence and that the prejudicial nature of this evidence created grounds for a mistrial that could not be cured by the trial court's instructions. Goss Bros. Trucking v. Ashley, 228 Ga.App. 354, 492 S.E.2d 7 (1997). We granted certiorari in this case to address the following question:
Whether the trial court properly denied defendants' mistrial motion, when (1) no evidence was introduced regarding the amount of insurance coverage available to defendants, and (2) in response to plaintiff's improper question regarding the amount of available coverage, comprehensive curative instructions were given to the jury. See Carolina Cas. Co. v. Davalos, 246 Ga. 746, 272 S.E.2d 702 (1980).
While we agree with the Court of Appeals that a question regarding the limits of liability insurance policy is an improper area of inquiry, we nevertheless reverse because we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellees' motion for mistrial since no evidence of the insurance policy limit was introduced by the unanswered question and the trial court gave prompt curative instructions.
"It shall be permissible under [The Motor Carrier Act] for any person having a cause of action arising under this article in tort .... to join the motor carrier and the insurance carrier in the same action...." OCGA § 46-7-12(e). In such a case, the existence of liability coverage must be proven to sustain an action against the insurer since the insurer "stands in the shoes" of the motor carrier for liability purposes. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fleet Transp. Co., 116 Ga.App. 606(2), 158 S.E.2d 476 (1967). Even in a direct action against the insurance company, evidence of the limit of insurance liability coverage should be kept from a jury since it might prejudice the jurors against a defendant and improperly motivate them to recklessly award damages to claimants. Carolina Casualty Ins. Co., supra. See Denton v. Con-Way Southern Express, 261 Ga. 41 n. 2, 402 S.E.2d 269 (1991). But if evidence of the limits of an insurance policy is introduced, the determination of whether it is "so obviously prejudicial" as to demand a mistrial remains within the trial judge's discretion and an appellate court should only interfere with that discretion when "wrong or oppression has resulted from its abuse." Wallace v. Cates, 120 Ga.App. 228, 170 S.E.2d 40 (1969).
In the wake of Ashley's question, the trial court properly sustained counsel's objection and promptly charged the jury to disregard the question itself and not to engage in speculation as to the policy limit since both were, in the judge's twice-repeated instructions, "irrelevant to this case [and have] nothing to do with it." A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doherty v. Brown
...result in every instance where an improper question goes unanswered." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Ashley v. Goss Bros. Trucking , 269 Ga. 449, 450, 499 S.E.2d 638 (1998). See Goins v. Glisson , 163 Ga.App. 290, 292 (1), 292 S.E.2d 917 (1982) ("generally liability or no-fault insura......
- Sallie v. State, S98P0013.
-
Turner v. Gateway Insurance Company
...a cause of action against a motor carrier's insurer on behalf of a third party injured by the motor carrier's negligence. See Ashley v. Goss Bros. Trucking;3 Morgan Driveaway, Inc. v. Canal Ins. Co.4 At the time of the accident, M.B. Transportation had a commercial automobile insurance poli......
-
Dundee Mills, Inc. v. John Deere Ins. Co.
...at 236, 188 S.E. 24. 11. Id. 12. Signet Bank/Va. v. Tillis, 196 Ga.App. 433, 434, 396 S.E.2d 54 (1990). 13. Ashley v. Goss Bros. Trucking, 269 Ga. 449, 450, 499 S.E.2d 638 (1998). 14. See Hodge v. SADA Enterprises, 217 Ga.App. 688, 690(1), 458 S.E.2d 876 15. (Emphasis supplied.) 16. 49 CFR ......
-
The Georgia Direct Action Statute
...817 (1963). 36. O.C.G.A. 46-7-12.1. 37. Ross v. Stephens, 269 Ga. 266, 267, 496 S.E.2d 705 (1998). 38. Ashley v. Goss Bros. Trucking, 269 Ga. 449, 450, 499 S.E.2d 638 (1998). 39. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Davalos 246 Ga. 746, 747, 272 S.E.2d 702 (1980). 40. Gates v. DeWitt, Inc., 528 F.2d 4......