Barrett v. City of Brunswick
| Citation | 193 S.E. 450,56 Ga.App. 575 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 1937 |
| Docket Number | 26445. |
| Parties | BARRETT v. CITY OF BRUNSWICK. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Conflicting evidence as to whether city hospital patient voluntarily put her hand into infra red lamp after being left in conscious and rational condition with instruction to keep hand by her side, or was left exposed to lamp rays an unreasonable length of time and in semiconscious condition or asleep, and as to whether lamp could cause gauze on patient's hand to become ignited, supported verdict denying recovery from city for burning of hand.
In action by city hospital patient for burning of hand allegedly resulting from leaving patient exposed to infra red lamp rays, which caused gauze on patient's hand to become ignited, testimony of nurse that another nurse who administered treatment was a splendid and conscientious nurse was not inadmissible as a conclusion, since witness was an expert.
An objection to testimony in trial court, consisting of mere statement that testimony was "illegal and immaterial," could not be considered by Court of Appeals.
An objection to testimony in trial court, consisting of mere statement that testimony was "illegal, irrelevant prejudicial, and inadmissible," could not be considered by Court of Appeals.
In action for personal injuries, wherein court instructed that mortality tables had been introduced to establish plaintiff's life expectancy, and should be considered with other evidence, plaintiff, who made no special request for more detailed instructions, was not entitled to new trial on ground that court failed to instruct as to method of using tables.
In action for negligent treatment in city hospital, by pay patient, wherein no evidence was introduced that hospital was operated as a charitable institution in exercise of a governmental function, it was reversible error to instruct that city would not be liable if it operated hospital as a charitable institution under charter authority.
Where it did not appear that plaintiff's counsel did not hear instructions as to jury dispersing temporarily during noon recess and under charge of court, or that he made any objection thereto, or that jury was guilty of misconduct or subjected to improper influence, plaintiff was not entitled to new trial on ground that court erred in permitting jury to disperse.
Error from Superior Court, Glynn County; Gordon Knox, Judge.
Action by Bartie Ragsdale Barrett against the City of Brunswick. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
J. T Powell and Krauss & Strong, all of Brunswick, D. P. Philips, of Decatur, and Young H. Fraser, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
B. N. Nightingale, of Brunswick, for defendant in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
1. In the present case where the plaintiff brought suit against the city of Brunswick for damages on account of injuries alleged to have been sustained while a pay patient in a hospital maintained by the defendant, it being alleged that the defendant's servant, a nurse, negligently left the plaintiff alone an unreasonable length of time in a room in the hospital with her left hand in a splint, bandaged and exposed to the rays of a nearby infra red lamp for the purpose of receiving treatment for arthritis, in consequence of which, it was alleged, the gauze bandage became ignited and severely burned the plaintiff's hand in certain particulars; and where the evidence was conflicting as to the manner in which the gauze became ignited, the plaintiff testifying that it became ignited because of excessive exposure to the rays of the lamp in the absence of the nurse while the patient was semiconscious or asleep, and burned her hand and fingers in certain respects, and several of the hospital nurses testifying that, responding to the outcry of the plaintiff, they immediately entered the room of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McBride v. Johns
... ... trial court wherein the testimony was illegal, prejudicial or ... inadmissible. See Barrett v. City of Brunswick, 56 ... Ga.App. 575, 577, 193 S.E. 450 ... 3 ... 'The ... ...
-
West Lumber Co. v. Schnuck
...case,' is too general to be considered by this court.' Woods v. Pass, 43 Ga.App. 487(2), 159 S.E. 776. See also: Barrett v. City of Brunswick, 56 Ga.App. 575(2), 193 S.E. 450; Owen v. State, 78 Ga.App. 558(2), 51 S.E.2d 602, and citations. 3. Ground 3 complains because the court sustained a......
-
Mcbride v. Johns
...without showing to the trial court wherein the testimony was illegal, prejudicial or inadmissible. See Barrett v. City of Brunswick, 56 Ga, App. 575, 577, 193 S.E. 450. 3. "The trial judge has a right to reopen a case at anytime for the introduction of additional testimony, and thisdiscreti......
-
Jackson v. Moultrie Production Credit Ass'n
... ... v ... James, 68 Ga.App. 773(2), 24 S.E.2d 130; Barrett v ... City of Brunswick, 56 Ga.App. 575(2), 193 S.E. 450; ... Scott v. State, 46 Ga.App ... ...