Albright v. Powell
| Decision Date | 08 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 41648,No. 3,41648,3 |
| Citation | 113 Ga.App. 363,147 S.E.2d 848 |
| Parties | Minnie B. ALBRIGHT v. V. E. POWELL et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The evidence authorized the verdict for the defendants, and the court did not err in submitting to the jury the issue as to the defendants' negligence, since to have withdrawn that question from their consideration would have been tantamount to directing a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability, and it is never error to refuse to direct a verdict.
Mrs. Minnie Butler Albright sued Dr. Vernon E. Powell and the Roberts Memorial Clinic, a partnership composed of Dr. Powell and three other named doctors, to recover damages on account of the alleged loss of her husband's consortium resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendants. The plaintiff alleged in her petition, and the evidence adduced upon the trial tended to show briefly and in substance the following facts: The plaintiff's husband, who, at the time, was 69 years of age, went to the defendant Dr. Powell on April 26, 1962, to secure a physical examination to determine the condition of his health. As a part of the physical examination of the petitioner's husband, Dr. Powell secured a specimen of urine in order that an analysis thereof might be made to determine, among other things, whether or not any sugar was present therein. The specimen was delivered to an employee of the clinic who made a chemical analysis thereof and ascertained that there was present therein a 'four plus' concentration of sugar. The presence of such a concentration of sugar in the urine raises a strong, though not conclusive, presumption that the patient is afflicted with diabetes mellitus. The analysis thus made by the lab technician was entered on Mr. Albright's chart, but contrary to the established custom of the clinic, was not specifically called to the attention of Dr. Powell, and Dr. Powell failed to examine Mr. Albright's chart to ascertain the results of the urinalysis. As a consequence thereof, Dr. Powell failed to inform the plaintiff or Mr. Albright or to take any steps to positively diagnose Mr. Albright's condition or to institute treatment. Thereafter, on September 25, 26, and 27, 1962, while the plaintiff and her husband were vacationing in St. Petersburg, Florida, Mr. Albright suffered a series of blackouts or fainting spells which caused him to seek medical treatment and advice there. At that time Mr. Albright was hospitalized, and the physician attending him concluded from his examination and diagnosis that he had suffered one or more small cerebro-vascular accidents, probably induced by arteriosclerosis. At the same time a routine physical examination of Mr. Albright revealed the presence of sugar in his urine, and he was further diagnosed as having diabetes.
The plaintiff contended that her husband was suffering from diabetes at the time he visited the defendant Dr. Powell in April, 1962; that the failure of Dr. Powell and the clinic to properly diagnose his disease and to institute treatment, and the failure of Mr. Albright to receive treatment over a period of approximately five months until September 27, 1962, aggravated his preexisting arteriosclerosis and contributed to or caused his subsequently suffered cerebrovascular accidents. The plaintiff further contended that the injuries to her husband were permanent and that by reason thereof she is suffering and will continue to suffer injury and damage because of her loss of the consortium of her husband, as well as severe and permanent mental pain and suffering on account of the condition of her husband since his injuries. She contended that the defendants were negligent in failing to diagnose the condition of her husband.
The defendants filed an answer to the plaintiff's petition, and in response to the plaintiff's interrogatories, made answers. In their answer to the petition and in their answers to the interrogatories they substantially admitted all of the factual allegations of the petition, but in their answer to the petition they denied that they were negligent in any of the ways charged.
Upon the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial on the general grounds and on 14 special grounds. The trial court overruled the motion for a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed, enumerating as error the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and in other enumerations repeated and reiterated the contentions of error made by the various special grounds of the motion. Since the enumerations of error raise exactly the same questions as the grounds of the motion for a new trial, we will, for the sake of convenience, refer to the grounds of the motion.
A. Mims Wilkinson, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, William H. Schroder, T. M. Smith, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
1. The first special ground (ground 4) of the motion for a new trial complains of the following portion of the charge: It is contended that this charge was confusing and misleading to the jury because it minimized the importance of the pleadings in the case, particularly with respect to the answer which contained important and material admissions.
Immediately following the portion of the charge complained of the court undertook to summarize the contentions of the parties as made in the pleadings, and after doing so, the court instructed the jury as follows: This portion of the charge is complained of in ground 6 of the motion because it is contended that the court thereby intimated to the jury that they might entirely disregard the pleadings, and that it was optional with them as to whether they should examine the pleadings to determine the contentions of the parties and the issues between the parties and was, therefore, misleading and confusing to the jury. These grounds are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoffman v. Insurance Co. of North America
...may recover he must show, in addition to negligence on the part of the defendant, damages and proximate cause. Albright v. Powell, 113 Ga.App. 363, 368(2), 147 S.E.2d 848 (1966). See also Owens v. Nichols, 139 Ga. 475(1), 77 S.E. 635 In an earlier case involving these very parties, Hoffman ......
-
The Onionman Co. v. Nationwide Argibusiness Ins. Co.
...that harm is required for a negligence claim to succeed on the merits. See Dkt. 15 at 4-6. Taking each of Nationwide's cases in turn: Albright v. Powell held that a jury could find the defendant was negligent simultaneously finding that the plaintiff had not established a right to recover d......
-
Baker v. Wilson, 54489
...R. Co. v. Musgrove, 145 Ga. 647(3), 89 S.E. 767." Ga. Power Co. v. Jones, 54 Ga.App. 578, 585(1), 188 S.E. 566; Albright v. Powell, 113 Ga.App. 363(1), 147 S.E.2d 848. 3. Appellants enumerated the court's failure to charge the jury on Code Ann. §§ 105-1401, 105-1802 as error. The record sho......
-
Hanselmann v. McCardle
...motions for involuntary nonsuit were properly granted. Kemmerlin v. Wingate, S.C., 261 S.E.2d 50 (1979); Albright v. Powell, 113 Ga.App. 363, 147 S.E.2d 848 (1966); Grier v. Phillips, 230 N.C. 672, 55 S.E.2d 485 Appellant also asserts the trial court erred in refusing to permit Dr. Heaphy t......