City of Summerville v. Woodard, 37133
| Decision Date | 09 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 37133,No. 1,37133,1 |
| Citation | 104 S.E.2d 507,97 Ga.App. 662 |
| Parties | CITY OF SUMMERVILLE v. J. B. WOODARD |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The trail court did not err in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant on one item of alleged damages sought by the plaintiff.
2. A material misstatement of the contentions of the parties is prejudicial error.
3. The charge covering the doctrine of respondent superior does not show reversible error.
4. A request to charge must be entirely correct, adjusted to the pleadings, adjusted to the law, adjusted to the evidence, and must not be argumentative.
5. The evidence did not demand the verdict found by the jury; it was however authorized by the evidence.
J. B. Woodard sued the City of Summerville for damages which allegedly resulted when his automobile, while being driven by his wife, struck a 'manhole' cover which protruded above the level of a city street in the City of Summerville. No demurrers, either general or special, appear from the record to have been filed in the trial court. On the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, which verdict was made the judgment of the trial court. The defendant filed a motion for new trial on the usual general grounds which it later amended so as to assign error on the judge's charge. The motion for new trial as amended was denied, and it is to this judgment that the defendant now excepts.
Robert Edward Surles, Summerville, for plaintiff in error.
Bobby Lee Cook, A. Cecil Palmour, Summerville, for defendant in error.
1. The first special ground of the amended motion for new trial assigns error on the failure of the trial judge to charge, without a timely written request, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the item of damages specified in the petition as, 'loss of wages and earnings of the wife of the plaintiff.' This ground of the motion for new trial shows that the plaintiff's wife testified that she had earned the amount alleged in the petition prior to the wreck but that she had not turned such wages over to her husband. At this point the defendant made a motion to exclude all evidence with reference to Mrs. Woodard's wages and that the jury be instructed that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover such lost wages. The judge sustained the motion but did not, in his charge, instruct the jury that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover on this item of damages alleged in his petition.
The jury was instructed that the pleadings in the case were merely the contentions of the parties and without probative value, and that in order for the plaintiff to recover it must be on a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant's motion was, in effect, a motion for a directed verdict on the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the wages of his wife which were allegedly lost as a result of the wreck.
In Bass v. Thigpen, 73 Ga.App. 279, 280, 36 S.E.2d 187, it was held that the trial judge did not err (after stating that he would direct a verdict but before doing so decided to, and did, submit the case to the jury), in failing to direct the verdict. If a fuller request had been desired it should have been the subject of a timely written request. See Code, 81-1101. No reversible error is shown by this ground of the motion for new trial.
2. Special ground numbered 5 assigns error on the following excerpts from the charge: 'He contends that he suffered certain damages to one certain automobile and also that he is entitled to compensation for certain injuries to his wife, Mrs. J. B. Woodard, who was then the driver of the automobile for which this suit is brought * * * Now, Gentlemen of the jury, the contentions of the plaintiff, on the one hand, that he suffered certain damages to his automobile and certain injuries to his wife, for which he is entitled to certain compensation * * * The plaintiff also asks for damages because of certain injuries to his wife, loss of her services, and I charge you as follows: If you find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover for the loss of services of the wife, I now charge you that in arriving at the amount of compensation to be awarded the husband for the loss of his wife's services she is not to be treated as an ordinary servant or as a mere hireling; he is entitled to the companionship and consortium of his wife.'
The defendant contends that the above charge did not correctly state the plaintiff's contentions as to the recovery that he was seekign, that it was confusing in that it would lead the jury to believe that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Gay, 41074
...a contention he did not make and not authorized by the evidence, necessitates the grant of a new trial.' City of Summerville v. Woodard, 97 Ga.App. 662, 664-665(2), 104 S.E.2d 507, 509 and citations; Porter v. Bland, 105 Ga.App. 703, 705(1), 125 S.E.2d 713; Wheeler v. State Highway Dept., 1......
-
Stiff v. Holmes
...cert. denied 246 La. 883, 168 So.2d 268; Applegate v. Harshman, 186 N.E.2d 763 (Ohio App.1962); City of Summerville v. Woodard, 97 Ga.App. 662, 104 S.E.2d 507 (1958); Crawford v. City of Wichita, 141 Kan. 171, 39 P.2d 911 (1935); Martin v. J. A. Mercier Co., 255 Mich. 587, 238 N.W. 181, 78 ......
-
Porter v. Bland
...as an admission of negligence. A material misstatement of the contention of the parties is prejudicial error. City of Summerville v. Woodard, 97 Ga.App. 662(2), 104 S.E.2d 507, and authorities there cited. While an obvious slip of the tongue does not constitute such error in a charge as to ......
-
Turner v. Tomberlin-Sheetz Architects, Inc.
...the evidence, necessitates the grant of a new trial. Ergle v. Davidson, 69 Ga.App. 102, 104, 24 S.E.2d 810.' City of Summerville v. Woodard, 97 Ga.App. 662, 665, 104 S.E.2d 507, 510. This error was not rendered harmless by the fact that it constituted a material mistatement of the original ......