FCA Chrysler's deadline to file a motion for reconsideration with the Georgia Supreme Court on a $40 million judgment passed Monday night with no action.

Chrysler would have had to file its motion by 11:59 p.m. Monday to have the judgment reconsidered, according to Georgia Supreme Court Public Information Officer Jane Hansen. No electronic filing was received.

The company's spokesman did not have an immediate response to an inquiry about its plans in the case.

On March 15, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the award for the family of 4-year-old Remi Walden, who died when his family's Jeep burst into flames after it was hit from behind. The Jeep's rear-mounted gas tank was the target of his parents' lawsuit.

The case has been closely watched by business groups, who urged the high court to upend the award. Although that didn't happen, the justices did offer some take-home advice to other lawyers to proceed with caution.

Justice Britt Grant wrote the opinion, parsing through the state's new evidence code. All the justices concurred with parts of the decision, but five of the nine differed on some points. Still, the end result was a 9-0 vote upholding Decatur County Superior Court Judge J. Kevin Chason's decision to slash the award to $40 million after a jury reached a $150 million verdict.

On the winning side is a legal team led by plaintiffs attorney James “Jim” Butler Jr. of Butler Wooten & Peak in Atlanta and Columbus. Butler was trying another wrongful death product liability case against Ford, and was unavailable for comment on the Walden judgment Tuesday.

Butler tried the Walden case with his son, James “Jeb” Butler III of Butler Tobin. The Butler trial team also included: George Floyd of Bainbridge; Cathy Cox, now dean of the Mercer University law school; David Rohwedder of Butler Wooten; and Beth Glen, senior paralegal at Butler Wooten. Michael Terry and Frank Lowrey of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore worked with the Butlers on the appeal.

“Remi died by fire 6 years ago this month,” Butler said in an email after the March 15 opinion was released. “Remi's parents and their legal team hope this is the end of it. We thank all the judges who devoted such time and effort to this case.”

Chrysler indicated an interest in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take a look. “FCA US is disappointed in this decision. We are considering our legal options,” a corporate spokesman said by email March 16.

And the company pointed to its long-held contention that the true cause of the child's death was the other driver and not the placement of the gas tank behind the axle—a design which was later changed, with the tank moved to the middle of the vehicle.

“The company continues to extend sympathies to the family of Remi Walden for their loss,” Chrysler said. “This tragic crash was caused by a reckless pick-up truck driver who slammed into the rear of a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee at highway speed.”

Following a nine-day trial in Bainbridge, the jury awarded the boy's parents $120 million for wrongful death, and $30 million for the child's pain and suffering. The verdict apportioned 1 percent of the fault to the other driver and 99 percent to Chrysler. The company filed a motion for new trial, which Chason denied on the condition that the parents accept a lower wrongful death verdict of $30 million and a pain and suffering verdict of $10 million, which they did. Chrysler then appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals, but the state's intermediate appellate court upheld the trial court's judgment.

The Supreme Court upheld Chason as well, and now has not been asked to reconsider. But the high court's opinion came with a note of caution for judges and lawyers.

Chrysler's lead appellate counsel on the case is Thomas Dupree Jr., a Washington, D.C.-based partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Dupree hung his oral argument for granting Chrysler a new trial on the company's objection to his opponent bringing up CEO Sergio Marchionne's $68 million-a-year compensation. Dupree complained to the Supreme Court in oral arguments last October that Butler wrote the CEO's pay on a “giant” board in front of the jury.

But the high court ruled that Chrysler's trial counsel did not make a proper objection at the time to form a basis for reversal.

“We cannot say that the prejudicial effect of the evidence so far outweighed its probative value that its admission was clear and obvious reversible error,” Grant wrote in the opinion upholding the $40 million judgment. Rather, she said, judges must determine whether compensation evidence is admissible.

However, Presiding Justice Harold Melton wrote in his own concurrence that “the outcome here could very well have been different” had Chrysler's lawyers made a proper objection to the emphasis on the CEO's pay.

“I would caution the bench and bar to be wary of the use of employee compensation evidence as a means of showing a witness' bias, because such evidence can be highly inflammatory and lead to unfair prejudice, and because there are other ways to show an employee's potential bias without referencing their actual income,” said Melton, who is expected to become chief justice later this year.

“Indeed, the plaintiffs specifically encouraged the jury to use Chrysler's CEO's income as a reference point for calculating its compensatory damages award,” Melton said. “In order to reduce the risk of such abuses occurring, in those rare cases where employee compensation may be relevant to an issue presented at trial, I would encourage trial courts to use limiting instructions as an additional tool to blunt any potential prejudice and to direct the jury's attention to the limited purpose for which the evidence should be considered.”

The case is Chrysler v. Walden, No. S17G0832.