Clark v. Wright, s. 51614

• Citation: 137 Ga.App. 720,224 S.E.2d 825
• Decision Date: 18 February 1976
• Docket Number: 51615,Nos. 51614,No. 2,s. 51614,2
• Parties: Betty Jo R. CLARK v. C. W. WRIGHT et al. F. H. CLARK v. C. W. WRIGHT et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 825

224 S.E.2d 825

137 Ga.App. 720

Betty Jo R. CLARK v. C. W. WRIGHT et al.

F. H. CLARK v. C. W. WRIGHT et al.

Nos. 51614, 51615.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Feb. 18, 1976.

R. H. Reeves, III, Millen, for appellant.

Spivey, Carlton, Clark & Merrill, Charles B. Merrill, Jr., Smith, Sheppard & Gary, Loren Gary, II, Swainesboro, for appellees.

MARSHALL, Judge.

Betty Clark, while driving her husband's car, received injuries when the rear tandem wheels of appellee's truck unexpectedly flew off and struck the front of the Clark vehicle with great force. Betty Clark filed suit for personal injuries, pain and suffering alleged to have been sustained as a result of the unexplained but negligent act. Her husband, who was not in the automobile, filed a separate suit claiming concomitant damages to his automobile, his wife's medical expenses, loss of services and consortium. At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff Betty Clark in the amount of $5,000 for her personal injuries, pain and suffering. The jury returned a verdict for her husband Franklin Clark in the amount of $2,000 for property damage only. Franklin Clark offered evidence tending to establish without rebuttal that ascertainable damage to his car was approximately $2,000.00. There was other evidence, however, that he had paid approximately $8,800 in medical expenses, would continue to pay some medical expenses in the future and had been deprived to a substantial degree the consortium and services of his wife Betty.

Both appellants moved for a new trial contending that the verdict and judgment limiting the damages of the husband to property damages was inconsistent and illegal when considered in connection with the verdict finding that the wife had suffered injuries, pain and suffering as a consequence of the collision. Appellant Betty Clark finds no specific fault in the verdict and judgment in her favor, but urges, as does her husband, that in order to do justice that portion of each verdict pertaining to damages only should be reversed and a new trial on damages only granted as to each appellant. Held:

1. The record establishes that the husband suffered damages for medical expenses in some reasonable amount, although the jury might have been authorized to find in some amount less than that for which prayer was made. Betty Clark testified she was injured as a result of this collision. She stated she suffered bruises, contusions, nausea and a general wrenching of her body. Two doctors testified that she had bruises, contusions, extreme nervous agitation, nausea and subsequent spinal complications, all as a direct result of the collision. The facts show she was hospitalized at least twice for treatment of these injuries and received drugs, physio-therapy, medical diagnosis, consultation and treatment to alleviate the pain and suffering she claimed to be direct result of her injuries. Each doctor attributed the treated injuries to the collision. While there was evidence that Betty Clark had been involved in a far more serious accident some eight years earlier and some of her problems could have been either an aggravation of or residuals of those earlier injuries, there can be no belying the evidence that the latest accident directly caused some injuries with resultant medical expenses.

Positive and direct testimony of an unimpeached witness cannot be arbitrarily disbelieved by a jury. Lankford v. Holton, 187 Ga. 94, 102, 200 S.E. 243; Myers v. Phillips, 197 Ga. 536(4), 29 S.E.2d 700. The law infers bodily pain and suffering from...