Bailey v. Perrin, 47685

Decision Date22 February 1973
Docket NumberNo. 3,No. 47685,47685,3
Citation196 S.E.2d 899,128 Ga.App. 476
PartiesLoraine S. BAILEY et al. v. Mary R. PERRIN
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Joseph E. Cheeley, Buford, H. A. Stephens, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.

Reed & Dunn, Robert J. Reed, Gainesville, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

PANNELL, Judge.

This case is before this court on appeals by plaintiffs, husband and wife, upon an adverse verdict and judgment in two actions brought against the appellee because of the injury and death to their son when an automobile owned and driven by defendant struck the son in front of the home of plaintiffs. The enumerations of error relate to the admission of certain evidence and to charges of the court based thereon.

1. A police officer, who had just testified about the occurrence in question, was asked about the previous occasion when he had been to this location in response to a call about children playing in the highway, when the following occurred: 'Q. What if anything, did you do? A. I talked with the gentleman on the road. Mr. Porter (plaintiff's counsel): Your Honor, I'm going to make an objection at this point. I think what this officer did previous to this occasion is irrelevant, immaterial, and serves no purpose in the case we have to try here today. The Court: I don't know who it is he talked to. He hasn't said. Mr. Reed (attorney for defendant): Who did you talk to? A. Your Honor, I didn't ask subject his name. We received a call on 25 which is shooting, and 24 a child in the street. The Court: Do you expect to connect this up, Mr. Reed, to this case? Mr. Reed: Yes, sir.' Then followed an interrogation of the witness and testimony by the witness of a conversation with the father about a complaint that the child had run in front of an automobile on the highway and the driver of the automobile had to run off into the ditch to avoid hitting the child. No further objection was made to the evidence.

Where evidence is conditionally admitted and the court reserves a final ruling on its competency until a later stage of the trial, it is the duty of counsel objecting to the admission of such evidence to invoke a final ruling thereon, and upon his failure to do so, the admission is not error. Rouse v. Fussell, 106 Ga.App. 259(1), 126 S.E.2d 830; Vun Cannon v. State, 208 Ga. 608, 611(2), 68 S.E.2d 586; Smith v. State, 108 Ga.App. 275, 276, 132 S.E.2d 821; Cupp v. State, 111 Ga.App. 722(2a), 143 S.E.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Timberlake v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1980
    ...of error can be made upon the court's ruling." Vun Cannon v. State, 208 Ga. 608, 611, 68 S.E.2d 586 (1952); Bailey v. Perrin, 128 Ga.App. 476, 477, 196 S.E.2d 899 (1973). The defendant's failure to renew his objection is understandable in light of the fact that, in our view, the state showe......
  • Hogan v. City-County Hospital of LaGrange
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 1976
    ...In the absence of an insistence upon a final ruling the decision of the court can not be treated as error. See Bailey v. Perrin, 128 Ga.App. 476, 477(1), 196 S.E.2d 899. (14) As our decision in the main appeal is favorable to appellee defendants, the cross-appeal by the pediatrician defenda......
  • Wilkinson v. Trust Co. of Georgia Associates, 47940
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 1973

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT