Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. Campbell, 41278
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | JORDAN; FELTON, C. J., and DEEN |
| Citation | 143 S.E.2d 785,112 Ga.App. 56 |
| Parties | CANADA DRY BOTTLING COMPANY v. Jeff CAMPBELL |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 41278,41278,1 |
| Decision Date | 09 July 1965 |
Page 785
v.
Jeff CAMPBELL.
Page 786
Syllabus by the Court
The defendant in a civil case is entitled to the opening and concluding argument to the jury when he has introduced no evidence; the rule that he is not entitled to such right unless he has admitted a prima facie case in the plaintiff applies only when the defendant has introduced evidence.
[112 Ga.App. 57] Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler & Harper, E. D. Fulcher, A. Montague Miller, Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
Franklin H. Pierce, Jay M. Sawilowsky, Augusta, for defendant in error.
JORDAN, Judge.
Jeff Campbell filed suit in the City Court of Richmond County to recover damages for personal injuries which he sustained as the result of a collision between a school bus operated by him and a soft drink truck owned by the defendant Canada Dry Bottling Company and operated by its employee, the defendant Frank Russo. Damages were sought in the amount of $75,000 for pain and suffering, $1,362.22 for medical expenses incurred and $2,229.50 for past lost wages.
The defendants filed an answer to the plaintiff's petition in which they denied the allegations of negligence charged against them, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $18,500 and the defendants filed a motion for new trial which, as amended by the addition of several special grounds, was denied. The exception is to that judgment.
1. After the introduction of evidence by the plaintiff, the defendants announced that they did not intend to introduce any evidence and requested the court to permit their counsel to make the opening and concluding argument to the jury. This request was denied by the court and in special ground of the amended motion for new trial, the defendants assign error on that ruling.
Under the decisions of the Supreme Court in Moore v. Carey, 116 Ga. 28(5), 42 S.E. 258; Willett Seed Co. v. Kirkeby-Gundestrup Seed Co., 145 Ga. 559(5), 89 S.E. 486; Williamson v. Williamson, 176 Ga. 510, 168 S.E. 256; Martin v. Martin, 180 Ga. 782(5), 180 S.E. 851; Milligan v. Milligan, 209 Ga. 14, 70 S.E.2d 459; Sutherland v. Woodring, 216 Ga. 621, 118 S.E.2d 482, the defendant in a civil case is entitled to the opening and concluding argument when he introduces no evidence.
As pointed out in the Williamson case, supra, the rule that the defendant in a civil case is entitled to the opening and concluding argument only when he has admitted a prima facie case [112 Ga.App. 58] in behalf of the plaintiff (See Abel v. Jarratt & Co., 100 Ga. 732, 28 S.E. 453; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 110 Ga. 168, 35 S.E. 345; Brunswick & Western R. Co. v. Wiggins, 113 Ga. 842, 39 S.E. 551; State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TGM Ashley Lakes, Inc. v. Jennings, No. A03A1401.
...171 Ga.App. 536, 537, 320 S.E.2d 604 (1984); Lissmore, 188 Ga.App. at 549-550, 373 S.E.2d 819; Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. Campbell, 112 Ga.App. 56, 57-58, 143 S.E.2d 785 (1965); Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v. Campbell, 56 Ga.App. 400, 192 S.E. 640 (1937); Jones v. Chambers, 94 Ga.App. 433, 95 S.E.......
-
Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Range, No. A05A1399.
...of the plaintiff applies only where both parties have introduced evidence." (Citations omitted.) Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. Campbell, 112 Ga.App. 56, 57-58(1), 143 S.E.2d 785 In 2001, our Supreme Court addressed which party bore the burden of proof and thus obtained the right to open and cl......
-
Justice v. Georgia Power Co., No. 65068
...to opening and concluding arguments even if he decided to present no evidence. He relies on Canada Dry Bottling Company v. Campbell, 112 Ga.App. 56, 143 S.E.2d 785, and numerous other cases holding that a defendant in a civil case is entitled to opening and concluding arguments to the jury ......
-
Taylor v. Buckhead Glass Co., No. 44568
...our courts have acknowleged the propriety of the grant of directed verdict on a single issue. Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. Campbell, 112 Ga.App. 56, 58, 143 S.E.2d 785; Smith-East Produce Co., Inc. v. Williams, 112 Ga.App. 620, 145 S.E.2d 794; Pennsylvania Threshermen and Farmers Mutual Cas. ......
-
TGM Ashley Lakes, Inc. v. Jennings, No. A03A1401.
...171 Ga.App. 536, 537, 320 S.E.2d 604 (1984); Lissmore, 188 Ga.App. at 549-550, 373 S.E.2d 819; Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. Campbell, 112 Ga.App. 56, 57-58, 143 S.E.2d 785 (1965); Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v. Campbell, 56 Ga.App. 400, 192 S.E. 640 (1937); Jones v. Chambers, 94 Ga.App. 433, 95 S.E.......
-
Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Range, A05A1399.
...of the plaintiff applies only where both parties have introduced evidence." (Citations omitted.) Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. Campbell, 112 Ga.App. 56, 57-58(1), 143 S.E.2d 785 In 2001, our Supreme Court addressed which party bore the burden of proof and thus obtained the right to open and cl......
-
Taylor v. Buckhead Glass Co., 44568
...our courts have acknowleged the propriety of the grant of directed verdict on a single issue. Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. Campbell, 112 Ga.App. 56, 58, 143 S.E.2d 785; Smith-East Produce Co., Inc. v. Williams, 112 Ga.App. 620, 145 S.E.2d 794; Pennsylvania Threshermen and Farmers Mutual Cas. ......
-
Justice v. Georgia Power Co., 65068
...to opening and concluding arguments even if he decided to present no evidence. He relies on Canada Dry Bottling Company v. Campbell, 112 Ga.App. 56, 143 S.E.2d 785, and numerous other cases holding that a defendant in a civil case is entitled to opening and concluding arguments to the jury ......