In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 17, 2021 S20G1121. WILLIAMS v. HARVEY et al. MCMILLIAN, Justice. Rubin Harvey, while driving a dump truck in the course of his employment with Oxford Construction Company, collided with a tractor driven by Johnny Williams, causing severe injuries to Williams. After Oxford conceded liability in the ensuing lawsuit, the jury returned a general verdict for $18 million. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, although the defendants did not make a contemporaneous objection, Williams’s counsel made an improper and prejudicial statement in closing argument that clearly violated the trial court’s order granting the defendants’ motion in limine. See Harvey v. Williams, 354 Ga. App. 766, 770 (1) (a) (841 SE2d 386) (2020). We granted Williams’s petition for certiorari and posed a single question: Whether a party must object to argument of counsel that allegedly violates a granted motion in limine in order to preserve the issue for appeal? For the reasons set forth below, we answer in the affirmative and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.1 The Court of Appeals summarized the underlying facts as follows: On April 11, 2013, Williams was driving a tractor for a local pecan farmer when a loaded dump truck driven by Harvey, an employee of Oxford, hit the back of his tractor. Williams was thrown from the tractor and ended up in a ditch on the side of the highway. As a result of the collision, Williams sustained severe injuries, including but not limited to a traumatic brain injury, multiple fractures (including a cracked skull), and the onset of seizures. In addition, while in the hospital for treatment, he developed sepsis. After spending approximately six weeks in the hospital, Williams was transferred to a rehabilitation center for patients with traumatic brain and other injuries where he was evaluated by several specialists and participated in different types of therapy. Williams was discharged to his home after approximately five weeks with the instruction that he would require 24- hour supervision. At the time of the collision, Williams was 67 years old and was physically active. He enjoyed doing yard work, going to church and singing in the choir, and being 1 We are assisted in answering this question by the amicus brief filed by Butler Wooten & Peak LLP. 2 around his family and friends. As a result of the traumatic brain injury he sustained in the accident, Williams requires 24-hour care for his day-to-day activities, requires medication to prevent seizures, has dementia, has trouble walking, has trouble emotionally because he gets agitated and confused, and has sexual dysfunction. When he walks, his gait is very slow and unsteady, and he has to wear a gait belt because he is at high risk for falling. At the time of trial, Williams was living at home and receiving care from certified nursing assistants 24 hours a day. A life care plan was prepared for Williams, and it included two options — the first …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals