American Honda Motor Co. v. Christianson, [A25A1237, Nov. 3, 2025] __ S.E.2d __ (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). The court (Hodges, J.; Pipkin, J., concurs; McFadden, P.J., dissents) affirmed.
Affirming an order striking the defendant’s answer, the court held Georgia trial courts possess broad inherent authority, grounded in the Constitution and OCGA §§ 15-1-3(3)–(4), to enforce compliance with their orders through sanctions up to and including striking defensive pleadings. The record supported the trial court’s findings that Honda committed repeated and willful violations of orders and agreements on motions in limine, amounting to a pattern of disobedience that justified the most severe sanction. Ms.** 6–12, 14–16.
The court further held that any error in applying Georgia rather than Tennessee substantive law was induced by Honda, which failed to timely and consistently assert Tennessee law until the eve of trial. Ms.** 17–21. On apportionment, the court concluded that because striking the answer functioned as a default, Honda was deemed to have admitted the complaint’s allegations that the decedent bore no fault; thus, apportionment under OCGA § 51-12-33 was unavailable. Ms.** 21–24.