In Griggs v. Columbus Bank & Trust Company, 188 Ga. App. 741, 743 (374 SE2d 347) (1988), the Court observed that "the inescapable conclusion is that the legislative intent behind the enactment of OCGA 9-11-41 (a) was to afford a plaintiff, faced with a contrary verdict or other untenable position, a second chance to litigate his suit despite the inconvenience and irritation to the defendant." Id. at 743. In Griggs, the trial court held that the plaintiff's case involved a meritorious justiciable issue for jury determination and stated that there was no evidence that by voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit, the plaintiff intended to delay, harass, or expand unnecessarily the proceedings. Id. at 743. The trial court nonetheless awarded attorney fees pursuant to OCGA 9-15-14. On appeal, we held that a plaintiff's invocation of OCGA 9-11-41 (a) does not, in and of itself, subject a plaintiff to penalties under OCGA 9-15-14 "when none of the grounds for imposing those penalties exists." Id.