Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ansley
| Decision Date | 25 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 33522,No. 1,33522,1 |
| Parties | ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al. v. ANSLEY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Stevens & Stevens, Thomson, for plaintiff in error.
Randall Evans, Jr., Thomson, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Damages allowed a plaintiff for an injury to his earning capacity are compensatory and must be proved by data or facts from which the pecuniary value of such diminution can be determined, City of Atlanta v. Jolly, 39 Ga.App. 282(1), 146 S.E. 770, and such damages cannot be awarded as 'additional damages' allowable under Code, § 105-2002, therefore, the court erred in charging the jury: 'Now, Gentlemen of the Jury, in every tort, such as you are trying, there may be aggravating circumstances either in the act or the intention, and in that event you may give additional damages either to deter the wrongdoer from repeating the trespass, or as compensation for the wounded feeling of the plaintiff or injury to his earning capacity.' (Italics ours). Such charge was error, and harmful to defendant in view of the amount of the verdict returned for plaintiff.
2. Grounds 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the amended motion for a new trial are without merit. The evidence demanded a finding that plaintiff suffered some damage and, therefore, it was not error for the court, while charging the jury that plaintiff would be authorized to recover if they found that the defendant's negligence, if they found the defendant negligent, was the proximate cause of the collision, to fail to charge that the plaintiff must show some injury or damage due to the collision.
3. Ground 9 of the amended motion is without merit. It is not error to charge a contention of a party made in his pleading even though such contention is not supported by the evidence. Western & Atlantic R. R. v. Lochridge, 39 Ga.App. 246(4), 146 S.E. 776; Id., 170 Ga. 208, 219(4), 152 S.E. 474.
4. Grounds 1 and 2 of the amended motion are without merit.
5. As the alleged errors, if they were in fact errors, in the charge as set out in Grounds 6 and 7 of the amended motion will not likely occur on a new trial of the case, we will not rule on such grounds.
The court erred in overruling the amended motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Cas. Co. v. Crain-Daly Volkswagen, Inc.
...v. Mopper, 58 Ga.App. 506, 507(2), 199 S.E. 249; Ga. Power Co. v. Sheats, 58 Ga.App. 730, 742, 199 S.E. 582; Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Ansley, 84 Ga.App. 89(3), 65 S.E.2d 463. Therefore, the charge in this case comes within the exception noted in the Blumburg case, relied on by the 4. ......
-
Leggett v. Benton Bros. Drayage & Storage Co.
...for a diminution in the physical ability to work resulting from an injury to the person of the plaintiff. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ansley, 84 Ga.App. 89, 65 S.E.2d 463. The confusion as to the applicable statute of limitation stems, we believe, from the fact that recovery for 'lost ear......
-
Department of Human Resources v. Thomas
...recovery for a diminution in the physical ability to work resulting from an injury to the person of the plaintiff. Atlantic C.L.R. Co. v. Ansley, 84 Ga.App. 89 (65 SE2d 463)." (Emphasis in original.) Leggett v. Benton Bros. Drayage, etc., Co., 138 Ga.App. 761, 764(1), 765, 227 S.E.2d 397. "......
-
Rogers v. Wilson
...Line R. Co. v. Anderson, 35 Ga.App. 292, 133 S.E. 63; City of Atlanta v. Jolly, 39 Ga.App. 282, 146 S.E. 770; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ansley, 84 Ga.App. 89, 65 S.E.2d 463. Since there is no claim for lost earnings in the petition and since there is no evidence from which to determine ......