## Facts

- David A. Smith II, a collegiate high jumper who later became a professional, was injured in an automobile collision caused by Donggue Lee’s admitted negligence.
- Smith alleged serious, permanent injury that required surgery in January 2017 and impaired his athletic performance.
- Smith sought damages including medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost future earnings, and diminished earning capacity tied to his professional high-jump career.
- A treating physician testified Smith’s injury was permanent and affected performance.
- Smith presented expert testimony from his sports agent on how professional high jumpers earn income (sponsorships, appearance fees, prize money) and on a typical career length of roughly ten years.
- The agent opined that, absent the injury, Smith was reasonably likely to earn at least about $1 million over his career and potentially more based on expected contracts and competitive performance.
- Liability was resolved before trial; the sole issue tried to the jury was damages.
- The jury returned a $2,000,000 general verdict for Smith, and judgment was entered with interest and costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Lee’s rebuttal expert for failure to comply with a scheduling-order deadline for identifying trial witnesses.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict on Smith’s claim for lost future earnings and diminished earning capacity as impermissibly speculative.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing Lee’s request for a special verdict form itemizing categories of damages.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the $2,000,000 judgment.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Lee’s rebuttal expert disclosed after the expert-identification deadline.
- The trial court properly denied Lee’s directed-verdict motion because the evidence provided a reasonable basis for future-earnings and diminished-capacity damages.
- The trial court did not err in using a general verdict form rather than requiring itemized damages.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion to enforce scheduling orders and may exclude witnesses, including experts, disclosed after court-ordered deadlines when the violation is not justified and risks prejudice or delay.
- A directed verdict is warranted only when the evidence, with all reasonable inferences, demands a particular result as a matter of law.
- Future earnings and diminished earning capacity need not be proven with mathematical certainty; the plaintiff must present evidence providing a reasonable basis for computation that rises above conjecture.
- Expert opinion on future earning capacity may be sufficient when grounded in professional experience and specific facts about the plaintiff’s career prospects, even if earnings vary by performance and market conditions.
- The form of the verdict is generally within the trial court’s discretion; a general verdict is permissible if the jury is correctly instructed on the elements of damages and the applicable burdens of proof.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the damages award, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in enforcing expert-disclosure deadlines, that the evidence supported submission of future-earnings and diminished-capacity damages to the jury, and that a general verdict form was legally sufficient.


Lee v. Smith, 346 Ga. App. 694, 816 S.E.2d 784 (2018)