Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia addressed the issue of whether to exclude evidence of recovery of payments from a collateral source in the case of Powell v. Stephens. The court considered the impact of the Tort Reform Act of 1987, which abolished the collateral source rule in Georgia. The key legal question was whether this abolition should be applied retroactively or prospectively. The court referenced its prior decision in Polito v. Holland, which established that the abolition would apply only prospectively. As a result, the court reversed the judgment, indicating that the lower court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion in limine. All Justices concurred in this decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abolition of Collateral Source Rule under Tort Reform Act of 1987subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the abolition of the collateral source rule by the Tort Reform Act of 1987 should be applied only to cases occurring after its enactment.
Reasoning: The court considered the impact of the Tort Reform Act of 1987, which abolished the collateral source rule in Georgia.
Prospective Application of Legislative Changessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the precedent set in Polito v. Holland to hold that the changes to the collateral source rule should not affect cases initiated before the enactment of the Tort Reform Act of 1987.
Reasoning: The court referenced its prior decision in Polito v. Holland, which established that the abolition would apply only prospectively.
Reversal of Lower Court's Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Based on the determination that the collateral source rule abolition applies prospectively, the court reversed the lower court's decision to deny the plaintiff's motion in limine.
Reasoning: As a result, the court reversed the judgment, indicating that the lower court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion in limine.