Violet Brown brought a personal injury action against Bessie Burnette seeking to recover for injuries she allegedly sustained when the car she was driving was struck head on by the vehicle Burnette was driving. Burnette’s husband, Anceberry, was also named as a defendant in the suit because he was the owner of the car. The jury awarded Brown $225,000, plus costs. The trial court denied the Burnette’s motion for new trial, and this appeal followed. 1. The Burnettes first enumerate as error the qualification of the jury as to any relationship with their insurance carrier. Although they recognize that this Court has long held that such qualification is proper, they argue that under the circumstances here we should carve out an exception to that rule because the insurer had already agreed to pay the policy limits to Brown, and thus had no financial interest in the outcome of the trial.1 We disagree. The issue of liability and the amount of damages to be awarded, if any, were both at issue in this case and subject to the jury’s determination. Thus depending on the outcome of the trial, the insurer could have avoided any loss in the event of a verdict for the Burnettes, or a loss less than the policy limits depending on the amount of damages awarded to Brown. This enumeration is thus without merit.
2. The Burnettes also argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion in limine to exclude evidence that Bessie had been issued a citation for failure to maintain lane and that Anceberry Burnette paid the citation on behalf of his wife who did not appear in court on the date stated on the ticket. Citing Howard v. Lay , 259 Ga. App. 391 1 577 SE2d 75 2003, they argue that because Anceberry paid the citation without Bessie’s knowledge, her failure to appear cannot be deemed an admission against interest on her part, and the trial court thus erred by admitting this evidence and submitting this issue to the jury. We find no error. Where a defendant cited for a traffic violation posts a cash bond . . . and fails to appear in court at the term of court and on the day set in the original citation and complaint, then . . . . such failure shall be construed as an admission of guilt and the cash bond may be forfeited. . . . OCGA § 40-13-58. The rule, as to parties to a suit, is that, while convictions for criminal offenses are inadmissible in a civil action of this kind, a plea of guilty may be shown as an admission against interest. Citations and punctuation omitted. Cannon v. Street , 220 Ga. App. 212, 214 2 469 SE2d 343 1996.
