See Automated Print v. Edgar, 288 Ga. App. 326, 329 (1) ( 654 SE2d 413) (2007).Carter v. Myers, 204 Ga. App. 498, 499-500 (1) ( 419 SE2d 747) (1992). NSI was a party to the Jeffreys lawsuit and thereby received notice of each deposition that was later filed by Georgia Power in this case and about which it now complains.
In any event, the failure to assert this issue and elicit a ruling by the trial court resulted in the waiver of this objection. Glisson v. Morton, 203 Ga. App. 77, 78 (2) ( 416 S.E.2d 134) (1992); see Carter v. Myers, 204 Ga. App. 498, 500 (1) ( 419 S.E.2d 747) (1992). 2.
Because the evidence at trial showed that plaintiffs' cause of action accrued before July 1, 1997, the standard for awarding punitive damages is governed by OCGA ยง 51-12-5 (a) rather than by OCGA ยง 51-12-5.1. OCGA ยง 51-12-5 (b). See Carter v. Myers, 204 Ga. App. 498, 500-501 (3) ( 419 S.E.2d 747) (1992). It is well established that that language means such damages cannot be imposed in any case unless there is willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences.
Lewis' failure to present any evidence demonstrating that the lack of verification on his brief was a mere clerical error precludes a finding that the trial court's refusal to consider the unverified brief as evidence constituted an abuse of discretion. See Carter v. Myers, 204 Ga. App. 498, 500 (2) ( 419 S.E.2d 747) (1992) (refusal to consider improperly supported evidence opposing summary judgment motion not error); see also Mazdak Auto c. v. Midcontinental Group, 231 Ga. App. 859, (1998) (no abuse of discretion to refuse to consider evidence opposing summary judgment which failed to comply with the procedural requisites of OCGA ยง 9-11-56). Lewis contends that the lease agreement was actually a security interest triggering OCGA ยง 10-1-36's notice requirements, which Lease Atlanta failed to satisfy.
[Cit.]" Carter v. Myers, 204 Ga. App. 498, 499 (1) ( 419 S.E.2d 747). In the case sub judice, uncertified excerpts from depositions were attached as exhibits to defendants' motion for summary judgment and to plaintiff's response.
Since this cause of action arose before July 1, 1987, OCGA ยง 51-12-5 applies. Carter v. Myers, 204 Ga. App. 498 ( 419 S.E.2d 747). "`To authorize the imposition of punitive damages there must be evidence of wilful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, or oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences. The latter expression relates to an intentional disregard of the rights of another, knowingly or wilfully disregarding such rights.
The record shows no evidence of malicious intent or conscious indifference to the consequences, therefore summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages in favor of the defendant is entirely appropriate. See Carter v. Meyers, 204 Ga. App. 498 ( 419 S.E.2d 747) (1992). The trial court concluded that a factual issue remained as to whether GMAC conducted the repossession in an improper manner.
Conscious indifference to consequences occurs when there is "an intentional disregard of the rights of another." Carter v. Myers, 204 Ga. App. 498, 500, 419 S.E.2d 747, 749 (Ga. App. 1992) (internal citations omitted). "Negligence, even gross negligence, is inadequate to support a punitive damages award.
Conscious indifference to consequences occurs when there is "an intentional disregard of the rights of another." Carter v. Myers, 204 Ga. App. 498, 500, 419 S.E.2d 747, 749 (Ga. App. 1992) (internal citations omitted). "Negligence, even gross negligence, is inadequate to support a punitive damages award.