Belluso v. Sunnyland Foods, Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 April 1977
• Docket Number: No. 53557,No. 2,53557,2
• Citation: 142 Ga.App. 7,234 S.E.2d 821
• Parties: Monica K. BELLUSO v. SUNNYLAND FOODS, INC
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 821

234 S.E.2d 821

142 Ga.App. 7

Monica K. BELLUSO v. SUNNYLAND FOODS, INC.

No. 53557.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

April 14, 1977.

Bailey & Stevens, Grover C. Bailey, Ronald Stevens, Atlanta, for appellant.

Tillman, Brice, McTier, Coleman & Talley, John T. McTier, Valdosta, for appellee.

SHULMAN, Judge.

Appellant was injured while she was a passenger in a car which was struck from the rear by a tractor-trailer truck used in appellee's business. A verdict was rendered in her favor against the appellee in the sum of $10,000. She appeals from the judgment entered thereon.

Appellant enumerates as error the denial of her attempt to introduce into evidence a motion picture film taken shortly after the occurrence, as well as the trial court's requirement that she elect to admit into evidence either the motion picture film or still photographs.

She also enumerates as error certain charges of the court going to the question of liability only.

1. The record before this court does not include either the motion picture film or the still photographs. " 'This court is a court for the correction of errors and its decision must be made on the record sent to this court by the clerk of the court below and not upon the briefs of counsel. See Greene v. McIntyre, 119 Ga.App. 296, 167 S.E.2d 203; Palmer v. Stevens, 115 Ga.App. 398(8), 154 S.E.2d 803; Meltzer v. C. Buck LeCraw & Co., 225 Ga. 91(1), 166 S.E.2d 88.' Jenkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 122 Ga.App. 412(2), 177 S.E.2d 204." Life Ins. Co. of Ga. v. Thomas, 127 Ga.App. 682, 683, 194 S.E.2d 625, 626.

However, even if we could consider this enumeration, the admission or exclusion of photographs is a matter of discretion for the trial court to exercise and unless manifestly abused will not be controlled by this court. "The admission or exclusion of photographs, even when there is admittedly some difference in the situation portrayed and that which existed, is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be controlled unless abused. McKinney v. Pitts, 109 Ga.App. 866(4), 137 S.E.2d 571. And see Toler v. State, 213 Ga. 12(2), 96 S.E.2d 593; City of Thomasville v. Crowell, 22 Ga.App. 383(4), 96 S.E. 335." Grasham v. Southern Railway Co., 111 Ga.App. 158, 161, 141 S.E.2d 189, 192.

The transcript shows no abuse of this discretion. Motion pictures are ordinarily admissible but where, as here, they also depicted other persons injured in the occurrence not involved in this litigation, they were properly excluded. See Glaze v. Bailey, 130 Ga.App. 189 at page 191, 202 S.E.2d 708; Shaw v. State of Ga., 83 Ga. 92(2), 9 S.E. 768.

The requirement by the trial court that the appellant elect to admit into evidence either the still photographs or the motion pictures was not harmful to appellant. Other photographs admitted into evidence adequately...