## Facts

- Ernest S. Roberts, Jr. worked as a bus operator for the Chatham Area Transit Authority.
- Roberts was injured on the job when his bus was struck by an automobile and became unable to work.
- The Authority discharged Roberts shortly after the injury.
- Roberts asked Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1324 to pursue a grievance seeking reinstatement; the Union refused.
- Roberts sued the Authority and the Union for breach of his employment contract, seeking lost wages.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury that it could consider collateral-source payments received by Roberts in mitigation of damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the collateral-source rule applies to a breach-of-employment-contract claim.
2. Whether a jury instruction permitting consideration of collateral-source payments was reversible error after OCGA § 51-12-1(b) was held unconstitutional.
3. Whether failure to object to the collateral-source instruction at trial barred review, or whether the instruction was “substantial error” reviewable under OCGA § 5-5-24(c).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defense verdict for the Authority and the Union.
- The court agreed that the collateral-source rule can apply in contract actions, including breach of contract claims.
- The court held that Roberts waived any challenge to the collateral-source instruction by failing to object at trial.
- The court held the instruction did not constitute “substantial error” under OCGA § 5-5-24(c) that would permit review without a contemporaneous objection.

## Legal Principles

- Georgia’s collateral-source rule is not categorically limited to tort; it may apply in breach of contract cases.
- A party generally must object to a jury instruction at trial to preserve the issue for appeal.
- OCGA § 5-5-24(c) allows review of an unobjected-to instruction only for “substantial error” that is harmful as a matter of law; the exception is narrow and does not cover every erroneous instruction.
- An instruction later shown to be erroneous in light of subsequent authority does not automatically qualify as “substantial error” for purposes of OCGA § 5-5-24(c).

## Conclusion

Because Roberts did not object at trial to the collateral-source instruction and the instruction was not “substantial error” under OCGA § 5-5-24(c), appellate relief was unavailable, and the jury’s verdict for the Authority and the Union was reinstated.


Amalgamated Transit Union Loc. 1324 v. Roberts, 263 Ga. 405, 434 S.E.2d 450 (Ga. 1993)