Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Range, A05A1399.
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Citation | 276 Ga. App. 360,623 S.E.2d 514 |
| Docket Number | No. A05A1399.,A05A1399. |
| Parties | KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. v. RANGE. |
| Decision Date | 03 October 2005 |
v.
RANGE.
Page 515
Chilton Varner, Franklin Brannen, Jr., Jacob Daly, Cesar Rodriguez, King & Spalding, Atlanta, for Appellant.
Eric Fortas, Amy Budow, Krohn & Moss, Ltd., Atlanta, for Appellee.
BARNES, Judge.
Lorenzo Range sued Kia Motors America, Inc. for warranty violations, and the case was tried before a jury, which returned a [276 Ga. App. 361] plaintiff's verdict of
1. The trial court held that Kia waived its right to open and close the final argument because it failed to give Range notice of its intention to do so before Range testified, based on the authority of Ga. Pipe Co. v. Lawler, 262 Ga.App. 22, 27(3), 584 S.E.2d 634 (2003). That case holds that a defendant seeking to open and close final argument because he introduced no evidence was "required to make this request before testimony by the other parties was submitted." (Footnote omitted.) Id. A review of the case law regarding a defendant's right to open and close reveals that this holding is in error.
A defendant in a civil case may obtain the right to open and close the final argument in two ways: by admitting the plaintiff's prima facie case before putting the plaintiff to the trouble of proving that case, or by submitting no evidence. Uniform Superior Court Rule 13.4; OCGA § 9-10-186. These two rules initially developed separately, but have, with the passage of time, become somewhat confused in our case law.
A defendant's right to open and close if he introduces no evidence is an old rule in this state. As early as 1884, our Supreme Court held that "Where the defendant to the bill introduces no testimony, it is his right, under the law, to open and conclude the argument to the jury." Cade v. Hatcher, 72 Ga. 359, 365 (1884). In 1902, the Court discussed the history of the rule, noting that, while nothing in the code allowed for it, it had become a common practice. Moore v. Carey, 116 Ga. 28, 34, 42 S.E. 258 (1902).
The statement of counsel that there is nothing in the code in relation to the subject except the provisions above referred to [involving criminal defendants] seems to us to be correct; for in our investigations we have been unable to find any provision in the code which in express terms declares that the failure to introduce evidence on the part of the defendant in a civil case gives him the right to open and conclude the argument. It has been, within the knowledge of some of the present members of this bench, the practice for
Page 516
more than forty years for the defendant to take the opening and conclusion of the argument when he introduced no evidence, [276 Ga. App. 362] and not within the knowledge of any of us has the legality of this practice heretofore been brought in question.
Id. The Court then notes that the 1852 General Assembly provided that "[t]he order of argument of counsel in criminal cases shall be the same as it now is in civil cases," and the defendant had the right to open and close final argument if he produces no evidence. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 35, 42 S.E. 258. The Court concluded:
We have been unable to trace to its origin this practice. The right of the defendant to open and conclude the argument to the jury in cases where he introduces no testimony has been claimed in other jurisdictions, but the general rule seems to be that the defendant can secure the right to open and conclude the argument to the jury only in those cases where he pleads an affirmative plea, and thus relieves the plaintiff of the onus which rests upon him in all cases. See, in this connection, 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. L. (1st ed.) 209; 15 Enc. P. & P. 186-7; 1 Thomp. Tr. § 254; 2 Ell. Gen. Pr. § 543; Bailey's Onus Prob. 624; Worsham v. Goar, 4 Port. (Ala.) 441(6) [(1837)]. Without reference to what was the origin of this practice in this State, or whether the practice is founded upon sound reasons or not, we will not now disturb that which has been the uniform practice for more than half a century, which was expressly recognized by the General Assembly more than fifty years ago, and which has been allowed to prevail both by the bench and bar during that period of time.
Id. This rule thus became formalized in our case law, and subsequently in our statutes.
Meanwhile, the other rule developed, allowing a defendant the right to open and close final argument if he admits a prima facie case before the plaintiff puts on his proof. Determining which party has the burden of proof affects the application of this rule. In 1868, our Supreme Court acknowledged that
[t]here is some confusion in the cases, on who has the right to open and conclude, in questions of this character [involving a mortgagee who was made a party to a widow's action for dower]. The current of our decisions is, that it belongs to the party moving; instituting the proceedings, and having power to control them. Weeks and wife v. Sego, 9 Ga. 199 [(1850)]; Harrison v. Young, 9 Ga. 359 [1851]; [Mason & Dickinson] v. Croom, 24 Ga. 211 [1858]. ... In the case [276 Ga. App. 363] before us, ... [i]t was too late, at any rate, after the plaintiff had gone on, and a reply had taken place, to make the question. Whoever opens the case, with the evidence, if he has a right so to open, has the same right in the argument.
McKibbon v. Folds, 38 Ga. 235, 238-239 (1868). The rule was codified in 1888, and the statute provided that a defendant's plea of justification admitting the act of which the plaintiff complains "shall not give to the defendant the right to open and conclude the argument before the jury, unless it is filed and insisted upon before the plaintiff submits any evidence to the jury trying the case." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Morgan, 110 Ga. 168, 170, 35 S.E. 345 (1900).
The Court later explained the reasoning behind the notice requirement.
A defendant can not sit by and take the risk of the plaintiff being able to make out his case, and then, when he does, claim that it was unnecessary because of the admission, and insist upon his right to open and conclude the argument. The defendant may think that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dziwura v. Broda, A08A2143.
...id.; Georgia Pipe Co. v. Lawler, 262 Ga.App. 22, 24(1), 584 S.E.2d 634 (2003), overruled on other grounds, Kia Motors America v. Range, 276 Ga.App. 360, 365(1), 623 S.E.2d 514 (2005); Cole v. Webb, 267 Ga.App. 174, 177-178(2), 598 S.E.2d 886 (2004); King Cotton v. Powers, 200 Ga.App. 549, 5......
-
Mays v. Kroger Co., A10A2008.
...entitled to the full benefit" of the settlement paid by the other defendants), overruled on other grounds, Kia Motors America v. Range, 276 Ga.App. 360, 365(1), 623 S.E.2d 514 (2005). We therefore reverse and remand the case with direction that judgment be entered for the estate in the amou......
-
Dees v. Logan, No. A06A0929.
...Ga. Pipe Co. v. Lawler, 262 Ga. App. 22, 25(1), 584 S.E.2d 634 (2003), overruled in part on other grounds, Kia Motors America v. Range, 276 Ga.App. 360, 365(1), 623 S.E.2d 514 (2005). Inasmuch as the jury returned a special verdict in the circumstances of this case, rather than a general ve......
-
Collins v. State, A05A2055.
...jury on intent unless it is contrary to the evidence and clearly erroneous. . . . [E]ven when a finding that the accused had the intent [276 Ga. App. 360] to commit the crime charged is supported by evidence which is exceedingly weak and unsatisfactory[,] the verdict will not be set aside o......