Amusements of America v. Schatz
| Decision Date | 20 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 42195,No. 2,42195,2 |
| Citation | 114 Ga.App. 627,152 S.E.2d 607 |
| Parties | AMUSEMENTS OF AMERICA v. Carmen SCHATZ, by Next Friend |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, George C. Grant, Hendley V. Napier, Macon, for appellant.
S. Gus Jones, Neal D. McKenney, Macon, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is a negligence action against a business proprietor that operated rides and entertainment devices at a carnival. The plaintiff was riding in a whirling type ride called the 'Scrambler' and was injured when the gate opened and she fell to the ground.
1. Several enumerations of error involve the question whether it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit the defendant's counsel to argue in opening and closing statements to the jury, and to refuse and fail to instruct the jury in its charge, to the effect that the plaintiff could not recover any medical expenses as damages in this action, which was brought for damages for pain and suffering only. It would have been permissible for the court to allow defendant's counsel to point out to the jury that they could not award any damages in this case for the medical care of the plaintiff's injuries. See Hightower v. Landrum, 109 Ga.App. 510, 514, 136 S.E. 425. However, the plaintiff did not introduce any evidence of medical expenses, and the court correctly charged on the measure of damages recoverable by the plaintiff. It does not appear that the court's rulings enumerated as error were error or harmful to the defendant. Champion v. State, 21 Ga.App. 656, 94 S.E. 828; cf. Georgia Power Co. v. Puckett, 181 Ga. 386, 390, 182 S.E. 384.
2. Testimony of a witness that about two minutes after the occurrence she heard a man, whom the witness could not identify, ask the operator of the ride why he hadn't put the seat belts in the cars, and told him to put them in immediately, and that the witness saw the operator putting the seat belts in a little while later, was admissible to support the plaintiff's contention, which was disputed by the defendant, that when the plaintiff rode the 'Scrambler' there were no seat belts visible to her. The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence for this purpose only. Amos v. State, 14 Ga.App. 589, 81 S.E. 903; United Motor Freight Terminal Co. v. Hixon, 77 Ga.App. 506, 510, 48 S.E.2d 769; 31 A C.J.S. Evidence § 410, pp. 990, 992. The court was not required to exclude the evidence as tending to prove that the defendant in making a change in its equipment admitted that it was negligently deficient. Great Cosmopolitan Shows v. Petty, 7 Ga.App. 236, 238, 66 S.E. 624. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Sellars, 89 Ga.App. 293, 297, 79 S.E.2d 35.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for mistrial because of the remark made by plaintiff's counsel in objecting to the defendant's counsel's manner of questioning a witness: 'I don't want this attorney teaching the witness * * * what to say.' We cannot say that this remark made the grant of a mistrial essential to the preservation of the right to a fair trial. Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 125, 130, 97 S.E.2d 313; Bostick v. Usry, 221 Ga. 647, 146 S.E.2d 882; Fievet v. Curl, 96 Ga.App. 535, 537, 101 S.E.2d 181. This remark was not a comment by counsel on the evidence and the witness' credibility, as the remark that was held to require a mistrial in Smith v. D. Rothschild & Co., 13 Ga.App. 293, 297, 79 S.E. 88, was said to be.
4. The trial court did not err in failing to charge the jury the law of accident. The defendant did not plead in its answer that the occurrence in which the plaintiff was injured was not caused by negligence of either the plaintiff or the defendant, but was what the law regards as an accident. The defendant contends that there was evidence authorizing a finding that the occurrence was an accident. 'The court is not required, in the absence of a timely written request therefor, to instruct the jury as to issues made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlanta Funtown, Inc. v. Crouch, s. 42166
...Ga.App. 596, 122 S.E.2d 330; or of injuries sustained by a fall from a 'Scrambler' when the gate opened as in Amusements of America v. Schatz, 114 Ga.App. 627, 152 S.E.2d 607. There was no unique, unusual or extraordinary occurrence in the ride itself or in the circumstances surrounding pla......
-
Medi-Clean Services, Inc. v. Hill
...236(2), 66 S.E. 624 (1909). See also Orr v. Dawson Telephone Co., 35 Ga.App. 560(2), 133 S.E. 924 (1926); Amusements of America v. Schatz, 114 Ga.App. 627(2), 152 S.E.2d 607 (1966). Furthermore, this was not actually evidence of a change in a condition following an accident. It had been the......
-
Underwood v. Ranger Mfg. Co., 43228
...Rhodes, 112 Ga.App. 572(1), 145 S.E.2d 756; Pinyan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 113 Ga.App. 130, 147 S.E.2d 452; Amusements of America v. Schatz, 114 Ga.App. 627(1), 152 S.E.2d 607; American Insurance Co. v. Guest Printing Co., 114 Ga.App. 775(3), 152 S.E.2d 794. The appellant here failed to i......
- Sutker v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co.