City of Dublin v. Howell
| Decision Date | 03 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | 29659. |
| Citation | 23 S.E.2d 177,68 Ga.App. 463 |
| Parties | CITY OF DUBLIN v. HOWELL. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Nelson & Nelson, of Dublin, for plaintiff in error.
E L. Stephens, of Dublin, for defendant in error.
Mrs. R Howell sued the City of Dublin for $2,500 damages for injuries received when she "stepped in and fell into a hole or gully which was in and across a street or sidewalk on which she was walking." The allegations of the petition and the evidence in support of them were extensive. Plaintiff obtained a verdict for $300. The court overruled the defendant's motion for new trial. The case here, as admitted by counsel for plaintiff in error, is "almost wholly factual." After a careful reading of the record we are convinced that this statement of able counsel practically covers the case. Under the whole record the verdict was authorized. The evidence sustained it.
Special grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 deal with objections to testimony to the effect that there were no street lights burning near the alleged defect in the sidewalk or street. While it is true that a city is not legally bound to light the streets, yet this evidence was admissible as a circumstance which might be considered along with other testimony to the effect that there was no signal, warning device of any kind to indicate the dangerous condition of such passageway which the city should have provided if it had knowledge of such defect as the evidence tended to show.
Grounds 5, 6 and 7 assign error on the admission of testimony over objections to the effect that the testimony went to prove (a) that approximately two weeks before the alleged injury another person had fallen because of the same defect in the passageway, and (b) that the testimony was not in rebuttal and came after the plaintiff and the defendant had rested the case. The first objection is without merit because the evidence tended to show that the defect had been in the street such length of time that the defendant by the exercise of ordinary care should have discovered it. As to the second objection, from a reading of the entire evidence we are not in position to say that it was not in some measure in rebuttal to the evidence of movant.
Ground 9 assigns error on an excerpt from the charge, and ground 10 on a failure to give a written request to charge. The charge as a whole was full, fair, and adjusted to cover all the issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glover v. Ga. Power Co.
...S.E.2d 341 (1975) (road contained "sharp curve with reverse super-elevation" which forced cars off the road); City of Dublin v. Howell , 68 Ga. App. 463, 23 S.E.2d 177 (1942) (plaintiff stepped into "a hole or gully" in the street); Hall v. City Council of Augusta , 49 Ga. App. 77, 77-78 (3......
-
Flowers v. Slash Pine Elec. Membership Corp., 45141
...prove some fact of the case on trial, the testimony falls within an exception-such as to show knowledge of a defect (City of Dublin v. Howell, 68 Ga.App. 463, 23 S.E.2d 177), or causation (Gilmer v. City of Atlanta, 77 Ga. 688, 690) or to rebut a contention that it was impossible for the ac......
-
Gunthorpe v. Daniels
...prove some fact of the case on trial, the testimony falls within an exception such as to show knowledge of a defect (City of Dublin v. Howell, 68 Ga.App. 463, 23 S.E.2d 177), or causation (Gilmer v. City of Atlanta, 77 Ga. 688, 690) or to rebut a contention that it was impossible for the ac......
-
Pembrook Management, Inc. v. Cossaboon, 60933
...and knowledge of that condition, the evidence is admissible. Bassham v. Diamond, 148 Ga.App. 620, 252 S.E.2d 23; City of Dublin v. Howell, 68 Ga.App. 463, 23 S.E.2d 177. All that is required is that the prior accident be sufficient to attract the owner's attention to the dangerous condition......