Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Meece v. McCroskey
Citations: 151 Ga. App. 369; 259 S.E.2d 645; 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2598Docket: 58111
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; September 4, 1979; Georgia; State Appellate Court
After the jury reached a verdict in a personal injury case, the plaintiff's attorney announced a settlement offer of $20,000 and recommended acceptance, inviting the plaintiff to voice any concerns. The plaintiff remained silent, prompting discussions between the court and the attorneys about the jury's verdict. The court suggested bringing the jury in without further comment, but the defense insisted on a formal record before the verdict was revealed. The plaintiff's counsel indicated his client needed time to consider the settlement, leading to a short break. Subsequently, the plaintiff's attorney withdrew the settlement offer, stating it was subject to the plaintiff's approval, which the plaintiff had not given, as he felt the amount was insufficient after consulting with his brother. The court ruled that the initial discussions did not create a binding contract due to the plaintiff's lack of acceptance. The court asserted its discretion in allowing the jury to present their verdict. Upon bringing the jury in, they announced a verdict of $50,000 for the plaintiff. The defendants argued that the settlement offer and acceptance created a binding contract, making it an error to accept the jury's verdict. However, the court disagreed with the defendants' interpretation of the situation, emphasizing that the matter was not simply about an offer and acceptance but involved the plaintiff's will and decision-making authority. Concerns arose regarding the authority of lawyers to settle cases without explicit client approval. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff did not approve the settlement, despite counsel's recommendation to accept the offer. The plaintiff's only response was a desire to call someone, after which counsel indicated that the plaintiff did not approve and preferred to wait for a verdict. The court's decision was supported by the record, including moments of silence and significant exchanges noted in the hearing transcript. As a result, the court affirmed the judgment, with no basis found to overturn the verdict. The case was argued on July 11, 1979, decided on September 4, 1979, and rehearing was denied on September 18, 1979.