 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nygaard v. Matheny5/24/2005
(2) (360 SE2d 255) (1987). Thus we cannot say that the trial court erred in holding the Nygaards to their word by requiring them to proceed to trial without a medical malpractice claim supported by new expert testimony noticed after they had agreed to limit the scope of that testimony at the pretrial conference. See Jones v. Livingston, 203 Ga. App. 99, 102-103 (4) (416 SE2d 142) (1992) (where plaintiffs made a discovery request that defendants state the subject matter about which their expert would testify, trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow expert to testify on a subject not revealed to plaintiffs); Uniform Superior Court Rule 8.5 (barring continuances not approved by court after case is placed on trial calendar, and imposing penalty for case removed within 5 days of scheduled trial week).
2. The Nygaards claim that the trial court erred in refusing to allow their counsel to examine prospective jurors in panels of twelve at a time. Again, we disagree.
The Nygaards' counsel asked the trial court to allow him "to voir dire 12 [prospective jurors] at a time as opposed to 30 at a time," and proposed that " nce we finish with the first panel of 12, we'll move on to the second panel." The trial court refused. OCGA ยง 15-12-131 provides: "In the examination of individual jurors by counsel for the parties in civil and criminal cases . . . it shall be the duty of the court, upon the request of either party, to place the jurors in the jury box in panels of 12 at a time, so as to facilitate their examination by counsel." However, the trial court is authorized in its discretion to allow counsel to pose their general voir dire questions to the panel as a whole. See Hammond v. State, 273 Ga. 442, 444-445 (2) (542 SE2d 498) (2001) (approving process of general voir dire of the jury pool of 40 with panels of 12 rotated through the jury box for individual examination). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to allow voir dire of the prospective jurors in the specific manner requested by the Nygaards.
Judgment affirmed. Blackburn, P. J., and Bernes, J., concur.
|