Beecher v. Farley, 39012
| Decision Date | 24 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 39012,No. 2,39012,2 |
| Citation | 123 S.E.2d 184,104 Ga.App. 785 |
| Parties | W. C. BEECHER v. T. B. FARLEY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. 'The question of damages being one for the jury, the court should not interfere, unless the damages are either so small or so excessive as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias.' Code § 105-2015.
2. In an opening statement to the jury counsel for a party may state what he expects to prove on the trial.
3. Where the jury returns a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, he cannot complaint of any erroneous rulings touching his right to recover which did not operate to his prejudice.
4. Special grounds of a motion for a new trial assigning as error the failure of the court to charge certain written requests must show that the requests were applicable to the issues in the case.
Walter C. Beecher brought suit against Thomas B. Farley and Maggie Farley in the Superior Court of Fulton County seeking damages for loss of services of his wife and for doctors' bills and medical expenses which he alleged resulted because of injuries she sustained in a collision of an automobile, driven by her, with the defendants' automobile. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $500. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and, by amendment, added several special grounds. The court overruled the motion, as amended, and this ruling is assigned as error.
G. Seals Aiken, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Moise, Post & Gardner, R. Emerson Gardner, Hugh E. Wright, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. Plaintiff insists upon the general grounds of his motion. However, the general grounds present no basis for granting a new trial because the only actual complaint he has is the fact that the verdict was, he claims, too small, and the question of the inadequacy of the veridct is not raised by the general grounds of a motion for a new trial. Trammell v. Atlanta Coach Co., 51 Ga.App. 705, 181 S.E. 315.
By a special ground of his motion for a new trial, plaintiff contends that the verdict for $500 is grossly inadequate and shows bias and prejudice on the part of the jury. The plaintiff claimed damages in the amount of $56,675.
The plaintiff, in his petition, claimed special damages in the amount of $493, consisting of doctors' bills and expenditures for medicines for the treatment of his wife's injuries. However, the jury was authorized to find that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the full amount of the special damages claimed by him. For example, Dr. Myers testified that his bill was $150 for treatment of injuries of the plaintiff's wife between November 4, 1958, to the time of the trial. Dr. Myers also testified that during this time he treated a swollen thumb of the plaintiff's wife, which injury had no relation to the injury she received in the automobile collision. The record is silent as to whether Dr. Myers' fee for the treatment of the swollen thumb was included as a part of his bill for $150. Dr. Tucker testified that his total bill was $98, but that $15 of this amount was for the removal of a tumor from the leg of the plaintiff's wife which had nothing to do with the injuries she sustained in the automobile collision. The plaintiff's wife testified that she personally paid for many of the drug items, and her testimony as to the amounts of these bills was vague and was based upon an estimation of the witness, in that she stated one drug bill was 'about $40', and another bill--'about, I'd say $40.'
There was evidence to authorize the jury to find the plaintiff's wife sustained no permanent injuries in the collision. Thus, the jury was authorized to find that the plaintiff suffered no great loss of the services of his wife. The evidence shows that the collision occurred on October 22, 1958, and that the plaintiff's wife was went to work full time at the Fulton Bag & Cotton Mill as a spinner on November 25, 1958. Her signed application for employment was introduced in evidence for the purpose of showing that she had represented to her employer that she had no back injury, which contradicts her testimony in this case.
'After verdict, in passing upon the motion for a new trial, that view of the evidence which is most unfavorable to the * * * [movant] must be taken, for every presumption and every inference is in favor of the verdict.' Vandeviere v. State, 58 Ga.App. 18, 197 S.E. 338. See Donahoo v. Goldin, 61 Ga.App. 841, 846, 7 S.E.2d 820.
Code § 105-2015 provides: 'The question of damages being one for the jury, the court should not interfere, unless the damages are either so small or so excessive as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias.'
In the instant case the maximum amount of special damages shown by the evidence is less than the jury's finding.
Ga. Ry. & Power Co. v. Shaw, 25 Ga.App. 146, 147, 102 S.E. 904. See also American Fid. & C. Co. v. Farmer, 77 Ga.App. 192, 48 S.E.2d 141. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the jury was bound to find for the plaintiff an amount greater than the verdict in this case. Cf. McLendon v. Floyd, 59 Ga.App. 506, 1 S.E.2d 466; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maloy v. Dixon
...104; Baggett v. Jackson, 79 Ga.App. 460, 463, 54 S.E.2d 146; Kaylor v. Romines, 85 Ga.App. 839, 841, 70 S.E.2d 395; Beecher v. Farley, 104 Ga.App. 785(3), 123 S.E.2d 184; Bell v. Camp, 109 Ga.App. 221(2), 135 S.E.2d 914; Stynchcombe v. Gooding Amusement Co., Inc., 110 Ga.App. 864, 867, 140 ......
-
Stynchcombe v. Gooding Amusement Co.
...71 Ga.App. 437, 445-448(2), 31 S.E.2d 236; Pierson v. M. & M. Bus Co., 74 Ga.App. 537, 538-540(1), 40 S.E.2d 561; Beecher v. Farley, 104 Ga.App. 785, 787(1), 123 S.E.2d 184. Also see cases annotated under Code Ann. § 105-2015, catchwords Excessiveness and Special ground 4 of the motion for ......
-
Smith v. Tri-State Culvert Mfg. Co., Inc., TRI-STATE
...show bias and prejudice on the part of the jury, nor can we say that a judgment in that amount was not authorized. See Beecher v. Farley, 104 Ga.App. 785, 123 S.E.2d 184; Darrah v. Womack, 123 Ga.App. 766, 182 S.E.2d 518; Maloy v. Dickson, 127 Ga.App. 151(2) supra, 193 S.E.2d 2. The trial j......
-
American Emp. Ins. Co. v. Johns
...the trial unfair. Taylor v. State, 121 Ga. 348(7), 49 S.E. 303; Waits v. Hardy, 214 Ga. 41, 43, 102 S.E.2d 590; Beecher v. Farley, 104 Ga.App. 785, 787(2), 123 S.E.2d 184. Such comments by counsel are necessarily within the discretion of the trial judge, and unless some positive injury can ......