Kerry Stolte and her husband sued a dentist for professional negligence, alleging that he severed Stolte’s lingual nerve during a wisdom-tooth extraction. After a defense verdict, Stolte appealed, arguing that the trial court should have removed four allegedly unqualified jurors and should have remedied improper closing argument about the dentist’s reputation. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. It held that the rule announced in Harris v. State applies in civil cases: a litigant need not exhaust peremptory strikes before showing harm from the refusal to strike an unqualified juror, because civil parties are entitled to a full panel of competent and impartial jurors. The Court also held that, once an objection to improper argument is sustained, OCGA § 9-10-185 imposes an independent duty on the trial court to take corrective action, even without a further request; it overruled contrary precedent. Stolte’s later objection to “trust” remarks was untimely, but that did not eliminate review under the reasonable-probability standard. The case was remanded for merits review of the juror claims and the closing-argument issues.