SECOND DIVISION
DOYLE, P. J.,
DAVIS and WHITAKER, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
received no later than 4:30 pm on the 10th day after
the decision was issued to be deemed timely filed.
https://www.gaappeals.gov/rules
October 7, 2026
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A26A1521. MASON v. WILSON.
DOYLE, Presiding Judge.
In this car-crash case, plaintiff David Mason appeals from a jury verdict in favor
of defendant John Wilson. Mason enumerates two errors by the trial court: (1) denying
Mason’s strikes for cause with respect to five jurors, thereby failing to afford him an
impartial jury panel of twenty-four from which to pick a jury, and (2) allowing Wilson
to seek apportionment of fault to a non-party without properly complying with OCGA
§ 51-12-33(d). Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.
As background, the relevant trial evidence shows that the wreck occurred in
stop-and-go traffic on Georgia 400. Mason was driving northbound, and cars were
going “from stop and up to maybe 20 or 30 miles per hour.” Behind Mason was a vehicle driven by Rajendra Bagadiya. Traveling behind Bagadiya was Robert Turner,
and behind him was the defendant, Wilson. At some point, Mason had to stop for
traffic, and Bagadiya was able to stop without hitting him. However, Turner was not
able to stop before hitting Bagadiya, pushing him into Mason; a few seconds later,
Wilson hit Turner, who again hit Bagadiya, who again hit Mason. Mason reported
persistent neck and spine pain after the collision and ultimately underwent surgery.
Based on these events, Mason sued Wilson and demanded a 12-person jury.1
Mason did not name any other defendants, but it is undisputed that, separately,
Turner’s insurance carrier accepted Mason’s demand for payment of Turner’s policy
limits.2 Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Wilson, giving rise to
this appeal.
1
Mason sued in state court and demanded a 12-person jury. See OCGA § 15-12-122(a)(2), (b) (“[In state courts, upon a proper demand,] the judge shall follow the procedures for superior courts of subsection (b) of this Code section ... (b) In all civil actions in the superior courts, each party may demand a full panel of 24 competent and impartial jurors from which to select a jury.”).
2
Mason conceded this in a pleading objecting to Wilson’s notice of non-party fault, and Mason’s appellate brief acknowledges this occurrence. See generally Am. Arbitration Ass’n v. Bowen, 322 Ga. App. 51, 54(1) (743 SE2d 612) (2013) (“[A] party may make admissions in judicio in their pleadings, motions, and briefs. What a party admits to be true in its pleadings may not subsequently be denied.”) (citation omitted).
2
1. Mason contends that the trial court erred by failing to strike for cause five
jurors — Jurors 6, 14, 22, 23, and 25 — thereby denying him a “full panel of 24
competent and impartial jurors from which to select a jury,” in contravention of the
requirement in OCGA § 15-12-122(b). See Hoffman v. Se. Ob/Gyn Ctr., LLC, 378 Ga.
App. 306, 307(1) (925 SE2d 729) (2026) (“Our civil jury statute provides that litigants
are entitled to ‘a full panel of 24 competent and impartial jurors from which to select
a jury’ by way of alternating peremptory strikes.”) (cert. granted). Based on the record
before us, we discern no basis for reversal.
Trial courts have broad discretion to evaluate and rule upon a
potential juror’s impartiality, based upon the ordinary general rules of
human experience, and a trial court may only be reversed upon a finding
of manifest abuse of that discretion. Trial courts have extremely broad
discretion to decide whether to exclude a juror for cause once an
adequate inquiry has been conducted. A conclusion on an issue of bias is
based on findings of demeanor and credibility which are peculiarly in the
trial court’s province, and those findings are to be given deference.
Joiner-Carosi v. Adekoya, 357 Ga. App. 388, 390(1) (850 SE2d 823) (2020) (cleaned
up). Further,
a prospective juror’s doubt about his or her own impartiality does not
demand as a matter of law that he or she be excused for cause.
3
Nevertheless, a potential juror must be excused for cause if he or she
holds an opinion so fixed and definite that he or she will be unable to set
it aside and decide the case based on the evidence and the court’s charge
on the evidence.
Wood v. B&S Enters., Inc., 314 Ga. App. 128, 133(4) (723 SE2d 443) (2012) (cleaned
up).
We address each juror in turn.
(a) Juror 6. During voir dire, Juror 6 indicated that “if there was not a lot of
visible property damage ... [she] would believe the person probably was not that
injured.” Defense counsel then asked “would you be able to look at the photographs
in this case, listen to the testimony and put that natural bias aside in order to arrive at
a fair verdict?” Juror 6 replied, “I mean, I would do my best, but I would be
skeptical.” When Mason’s trial counsel raised “concerns” with the trial court about
Juror 6’s response, the trial court did not “find that rises to cause.” Mason’s counsel
replied, “that’s fair.”
A litigant cannot submit to a ruling, acquiesce in the ruling, and
still complain of same. He is required to stand his ground and fight in
order to successfully enumerate as error an alleged erroneous ruling by
the trial judge. Acquiescence completely deprives him of the right to
4
complain further; he has agreed that the trial court’s ruling was correct
by submitting to it.
Ga. Dep’t of Transp. v. Baldwin, 292 Ga. App. 816, 817(1) (665 SE2d 898) (2008)
(punctuation omitted). By raising a concern and then agreeing that the trial court’s
finding was “fair,” Mason acquiesced in the court’s ruling. But even if not, the juror’s
statements do not rise to the level of a fixed and definite opinion such that
disqualification was required as a matter of law. “[A] juror who indicates a willingness
to try to be objective and whose reservations relate to an issue in the case rather than
to a party may be eligible for service.” Wood, 314 Ga. App. at 134(4) (cleaned up). The
doubt expressed by the juror represented a basic presumption that lighter impacts
cause less damage and injury, and the juror agreed to do her best to be fair when
looking at the evidence presented in the case. As noted above, “a prospective juror’s
doubt about his or her own impartiality does not demand as a matter of law that he or
she be excused for cause,” and Juror 6’s voir dire response did not rise to the level
requiring disqualification as a matter of law. Id. at 133(4) (cleaned up).
(b) Juror 14. Juror 14 was an insurance agent and reported that she had rearended a neighbor who later appeared at her door “with a wrap.” She further explained
5
that she received a letter stating that the neighbor was suing her, but her insurance
agent “[took] care of it, and I never heard back.” She also explained that she was
“biased against like aggressive advertisements. Maybe it’s because of all the things
I’ve heard from my clients ... so I have to say it, I guess.”3 When Mason’s counsel
asked if the juror would hold that bias against Mason, the juror stated, “No. No. It’s
not personal. It’s more the system,” but when asked if she could set that aside and
listen to the facts of the case fairly, she said, “I’m not sure.”
Based on this colloquy, Mason argues that the trial court should have struck
Juror 14 for cause. Nevertheless, the juror expressed that her distaste for advertising
was “not personal” and a view of “the system.” Cf. Sears v. State, 292 Ga. 64, 66(2)
(734 SE2d 345) (2012) (affirming the denial of a strike for cause when a juror “said
that the criminal justice system has numerous ‘loopholes’ that allow guilty persons to
‘get off scot free just because one little thing wasn’t done,’ that she ‘sometimes thinks
that there are more rights for criminals than victims,’ and that the criminal justice
system involves a ‘revolving door’ by which persons are released from prison only to
commit crimes again”(punctuation omitted)). When pressed about her fairness, Juror
3
Mason was represented at trial by an attorney from Morgan and Morgan, who described the firm as “big on advertising. We advertise a lot.”
6
14 only expressed uncertainty, and in this context, the trial court was entitled to weigh
her credibility and demeanor and find that her opinion was not so fixed and definite
as to require striking her for cause as a matter of law. See Joiner-Carosi, 357 Ga. App.
at 390(1); Wood, 314 Ga. App. at 134(4); Remillard v. Longstreet Clinic, P.C., 267 Ga.
App. 230, 234(2)(a) (599 SE2d 198) (2004) (“excusal [is not] required when a
potential juror expresses reservations about his or her ability to put aside personal
experiences.”) (punctuation omitted).
(c) Juror 22. This juror was a construction field engineer, and he stated that he
had “seen many cases where people will fake or exaggerate injuries in order to get
money and not have to work.” Even so, he stated that he had seen “the opposite
where people actually do get injured,” and based on that, he would “be willing to
listen” but “could possibly be w[ary], yes.” He explained that he has seen “more
often that people will exaggerate injuries than I have seen them be actually injured, so
there’s doubt in my mind.”
Again, although Juror 22 candidly reported his experience and “doubt,” he did
not express a fixed and definite opinion about the facts or outcome of the case, and he
agreed that he would “be willing to listen.” The trial court was within its discretion
7
to weigh his expressed wariness and conclude that it did not rise to the level requiring
a strike for cause. See, e.g., Remillard, 267 Ga. App. at 234–35(2)(a).
(d) Juror 23. Similarly, Juror 23 stated his view that in “the society we live in
now[,] anybody is able to take anybody to court for any reason they feel they need to
or want to.” When asked if he had any beliefs about “whether the plaintiff is
presenting a valid claim or not,” he answered that “there can always be doubt in my
mind about that because ... I would definitely have to listen to the evidence and see
what’s what. I have had friends who have put up fraudulent claims and taken people
to court several times.” Mason’s counsel then asked if, based on Juror 23’s past
experience, he would be able to listen objectively, and he responded, “I could listen
objectively.” The following colloquy ensued:
Counsel: Okay. And could you be unbiased in listening objectively?
Juror 23: I don’t want to say probably not, but probably not.
Counsel: And why would you say that you probably could not be
unbiased in listening to the evidence?
Juror 23: Because I’m listening. I don’t know anything about any of this,
but listening to the evidence and what really happened, in my mind, I will
8
say two other things[.] ... There’s a question of what really happened? I
know what you’re telling me. I know what you’re presenting to me[,]
but, again, I’ve had individuals who quote, unquote, got hurt at work, but
I know they didn’t get hurt at work.
Counsel: Understood. So Mr. Mason would be starting a step back in this
trial from your perspective because you have this bias and these
preconceived ideas about was someone really injured?
Juror 23: It’s possible.
Based on this exchange, Mason argues that the trial court should have struck
Juror 23 for cause. But in context of the exchange as a whole, the juror’s “possible”
reservations do not rise to the level of fixed bias requiring a strike for cause as a matter
of law. The juror did express that “I don’t know anything about any of this,” and that
“I could listen objectively.” This reflected his understanding and acceptance of his
duty as a juror, and the doubts he expressed were not so definite that he could not set
aside his preconceptions and weigh the evidence objectively. See Wood, 314 Ga. App.
at 133(4). Accordingly, this argument presents no basis for reversal.
(e) Juror 25. This juror was an electrical engineer who professed that
I absolutely could be objective and analytical. I love to look at evidence
and reach conclusions. I will add that with being — just how litigious our
9
society is and how many fraudulent lawsuits you do see, personally, I
think the fundamental effect it has on me would be to raise the bar, that
you would have to meet — 51 percent just wouldn’t be good enough. I
think it would have to be somewhere in between 51 percent and no
reasonable doubt, you know, for the criminal cases.
When Mason’s counsel asked for clarification, Juror 25 replied,
Well, her honor hasn’t given us the legalese, the exact verbiage of the
standard we would have to apply. I certainly would attempt to abide by
her instructions. I’m just telling you about my personal kind of bias. I
would want to see more than 51 percent, let’s put it at 60 percent on it
is what I would want to see.
Later, when Wilson’s counsel explored this, the juror explained:
I understand it’s completely different in criminal cases. I’m not trying to
drum it up, but I’m just saying with the unnecessary litigation out there
and fraudulent lawsuits, that’s just been the result of me personally, my
beliefs. ... I would certainly do my best and, again, when we hear [about]
the bar as far as the actual criteria that I need to explicitly follow.
Counsel: Right. [The trial judge] is going to give you the law. And we’re
going to present evidence, the attorneys on both sides. So, would you be
able to hear the evidence on both sides, listen to the law and be impartial?
Juror 25: Yes. Yes.
10
Counsel: But you would need to hear [the judge’s] law first?
Juror 25: Yeah, that’s a big part of it, right. But I guess my point is just
barely over the halfway point just doesn’t feel like it’s enough.
Counsel: Okay. Thank you.
Juror 25: But, yes, I would absolutely do my best to be impartial and
neutral.
Based on this exchange, Juror 25’s reservations about the standard of proof
were preliminary, before he was given any instruction about the applicable standard,
and he explained that he would want to listen to the trial judge’s instruction and
“absolutely do [his] best to be impartial and neutral.” Thus, to the extent that the
juror expressed doubt coming into the case, he explicitly stated that he could set it
aside, listen to the evidence, and “be objective and analytical.” Based on this, the trial
court did not err by failing to strike Juror 25 for cause. See id.
Given the foregoing, Mason has not established that the trial court abused its
discretion by failing to strike these jurors for cause. Therefore, Mason has not
established that the court violated the requirements of OCGA § 15-12-122.
11
2. Mason also contends that the trial court erred by allowing apportionment of
fault as an issue for the jury’s consideration. Prior to trial, Wilson filed a notice of
nonparty fault, naming Turner and Bagadiya as potentially at fault. After Mason
opposed the notice, the trial court ruled that it was untimely as to Bagadiya because
it was not filed within 120 days prior to trial, but Turner could be considered because
his insurer had accepted Mason’s demand for Turner’s policy limits, thereby
amounting to a settlement. See OCGA § 51-12-33(d)(1) (“Negligence or fault of a
nonparty shall be considered if the plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with the
nonparty or if a defending party gives notice not later than 120 days prior to the date of trial
that a nonparty was wholly or partially at fault.”) (emphasis added).
Mason argues that the trial court erred by ruling that Turner’s insurance
payment reflected an actual settlement in the absence of a settlement agreement in the
record. Based on this, he argued that potential apportionment was not proper, and the
trial court erred by instructing the jury on apportionment and allowing the jury to
consider the percentage of fault as between Wilson (who hit Turner) and Turner (who
hit Bagadiya). He also points out that the verdict form outlined the following process:
12
(1) find in favor of the plaintiff or in favor of the defendant, and if the finding is for the
plaintiff,4 (2) assess the percentage of fault to Wilson and Turner with a total of 100%.
But as argued by Wilson, the jury returned a verdict in his favor, and it did not
proceed to the apportionment phase relating to Turner. Thus, pretermitting whether
the trial court erroneously equated Turner’s insurance payment to a full settlement
for purposes of OCGA § 51-12-33, Mason cannot show harm by the inclusion of
Turner as a potential party at fault. Rather than reaching the question of
apportionment, the jury found that Mason had failed to meet his burden to show any
fault on the part of Wilson, the only named defendant.5 Accordingly, this argument
presents no basis for reversal. See Monitronics Int’l, Inc. v. Veasley, 323 Ga. App. 126,
141(5) (746 SE2d 793) (2013) (“[T]o show reversible error, ‘there must be harm as
well as error and the lack of harm makes this enumeration of error without merit.’”).
Cf. King v. State, 178 Ga. App. 343, 345(3) (343 SE2d 401) (1986) (noting that a
4
The verdict form instructed the jury to stop at step one if it found for defendant Wilson.
5
Mason, Turner, Bagadiya, and Wilson all appeared and testified as to the facts surrounding the crash.
13
potential issue with the verdict form was harmless in light of a jury’s finding, which
finding did not implicate the alleged defect).
Judgment affirmed. Davis and Whitaker, JJ., concur.
14