Cannon v. Rithmire
| Decision Date | 07 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 60389,60389 |
| Citation | 156 Ga.App. 360,274 S.E.2d 746 |
| Parties | CANNON et al. v. RITHMIRE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jimmy W. Jones, Marietta, for appellants.
James C. Gaulden, Jr., Thomas Henry Nickerson, Atlanta, for appellee.
The plaintiffs Cannon sued Rithmire for damages arising from an automobile collision. The evidence showed that Mr. Cannon, his wife and two grandchildren were traveling south on a four-lane highway, in the inside left lane next to the median. The speed limit was 45 m. p. h.; the Cannon vehicle was traveling approximately 33 m. p. h. Mr. Rithmire, driving a truck, approached the highway at an intersection to Mr. Cannon's right. He stopped at the stop sign but then pulled out across the highway intending to cross the median and turn left, or north. According to Rithmire, the Cannon vehicle was 100 to 125 feet from the intersection when Rithmire pulled out, but according to the occupants of Cannon's car, their vehicle was much closer when Rithmire first stopped at the stop sign. There were bushes and trees at his right, according to Rithmire, which interfered with his vision of northbound traffic. When he reached the median, Rithmire testified he was unable to turn left because another car passed by in the northbound lanes; and the tail end of his truck protruded or stuck out from the median area into the inside southbound lane. Cannon testified he saw Rithmire stop at the stop sign, but then Rithmire's vehicle just loomed up in front of him; he applied the brakes and swerved to the left in an attempt to avoid impact. His car skidded 49 feet before striking Rithmire's truck in the front left door and front left portions of the truck. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant Rithmire, and the Cannons appeal, enumerating three errors. Held :
1. The trial court charged the jury that "under the no-fault law of this state," the plaintiffs could not recover for medical expenses or housekeeping services. A similar charge was approved in Walls v. Parker, 146 Ga.App. 882, 883, 247 S.E.2d 556. We do not find that the implication that the plaintiffs had no-fault insurance amounted to an improper implication that the plaintiffs also had liability insurance, as they contend on appeal, nor that such remote speculation on the part of the jury could have resulted in harm to the plaintiff, since the jury did not award the defendant any damages. The charge, even if it had been error, therefore, does not require reversal. Thigpen v. Batts, 199 Ga. 161, 33 S.E.2d 424.
2. Appellants allege that the trial court erred in denying a new trial motion which was made on the general grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and contrary to law and equity. It is also contended that it was error to refuse admission of Mr. Cannon's testimony that in traffic court he had heard Rithmire explain the collision to the traffic judge by saying "I thought I could beat him."
The court below refused to admit this statement because the traffic court proceeding where it was allegedly made did not produce a guilty plea by Rits on appeal that the statement was inadmissible bechmire. Rithmire argues on appeal that the statement was inadmissible because Rithmire denied having made it and because the alleged statement was not made in connection with a guilty plea. We hold it was error to reject this statement out of evidence. The statement was competent evidence as an admission against interests. Such statements are admissible whether made in or out of court (Edwards v. Bullard, 131 Ga.App. 34, 38, 205 S.E.2d 115; Roper v. Scott, 77 Ga.App. 120(2), 48 S.E.2d 118; Henderson v. Henderson, 94 Ga.App. 64, 72, 93 S.E.2d 822). While the alleged statement apparently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crosby v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
...against interest by a party is original evidence and is admissible as evidence as to the issue of liability. Cannon v. Rithmire, 156 Ga.App. 360, 361-362(2), 274 S.E.2d 746 (1980). (a) Since there was a material issue of fact as to whether the radial belting separated because of a manufactu......
-
Hunter v. Hardnett, A90A1913
...court to determine the credibility of the evidence or its weight, but only its competence." (Citations omitted.) Cannon v. Rithmire, 156 Ga.App. 360, 362, 274 S.E.2d 746 (1980). Relevant evidence may be excluded, in the discretion of the judge, where the court finds that " 'its probative va......
-
Collins v. Davis, 75271
...charge mitigating the prejudice would be helpful, but not where the evidence should not have been admitted at all. In Cannon v. Rithmire, 156 Ga.App. 360(1), 274 S.E.2d 746, we held a charge that "under the no-fault law" the plaintiff could not recover medical expenses, did not, contrary to......
-
Tucker v. Colonial Ins. Co. of California
...273 (1988), the alleged error would concern the issue of damages and not liability resulting in no harm. See Cannon v. Rithmire, 156 Ga.App. 360, 361(1), 274 S.E.2d 746 (1980). 3. The next contention is that the trial court should have granted a directed verdict on the Yost counterclaim. Th......