Collins Park & B. R. Co v. Ware

• Decision Date: 26 January 1901
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: COLLINS PARK & B. R. CO. v. WARE.

112 Ga. 663

37 S.E. 975

COLLINS PARK & B. R. CO.

v.WARE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 26, 1901.

TRIAL—ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL—PERSONAL INJURIES—EVIDENCE—OBJECTIONS.

1. Improper conduct on the part of counsel in making an unauthorized statement of fact in the hearing of the jury is not to be corrected by "ruling out" the statement, but by instructing the jury to disregard the same, or by declaring a mistrial if, on account of the grossness or seriousness of the impropriety, the ends of justice 'so require.

2. Though the petition of a husband in an action for the loss of his wife's services, occasioned by personal injuries tortiously caused, may not allege that a particular physical infirmity resulted from such injuries, proof thereof may be received if, during the progress of the trial, the same becomes collaterally pertinent.

3. Overruling an objection made generally to specified evidence is in no event cause for reversing a judgment, unless it appears that the objection was good as to all of such evidence.

4. When, in the trial of such an action, there was evidence to warrant a finding that the injuries of the wife were permanent, the mortality and annuity tables were properly admitted in evidence.

5. There was no error in rejecting or in admitting evidence. It does not appear that the verdict was excessive, or unwarranted, and there was no error in denying a new trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by A. J. Ware against the Collins Park & Belt Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Jas. A. Anderson and Simmons & Petti-grew, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. L. Bell and Rosser & Carter, for defendant in error.

LEWIS, J. This was a suit by A. J. Ware against the Collins Park & Belt Railroad Company, instituted in the city court of Atlanta, for damages resulting from injuries sustained by the plaintiff's wife in consequence of the alleged negligence of the defendant company. The petition alleged, in substance, that plaintiff's wife, while a passenger on one of defendant's cars, attempted to alight therefrom, and caught the heel of her shoe on a screw intended to fasten to the floor of the car the fender over the wheel, the screw in question having been negligently allowed to work up until it protruded for a half inch or an inch above the floor of the car; that she was, in consequence, thrown violently upon the ground and rocks of the street, and was severely and permanently injured; that the injury was not the result of any negligence on the part of plaintiff's wife, but was due to the negligence of the defendant company or its employes in leaving the screws in an unsafe condition, and in failing to keep the fenders of its car properly fastened down and confined to the floor. The defendant denied all the allegations of negligence on its part, and further pleaded that plaintiff's wife, by the exercise of ordinary care, could have avoided the injury which she sustained; that her own negligence caused the injury; and that the injury was an unavoidable accident, unmixed with defendant's negligence. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,000. Defendant made a motion for a new trial, to the overruling of which by the court below it now excepts.

1. Besides the general grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, plaintiff in error complains that the court erred in allowing counsel for the plaintiff below, while inquiring of a witness as to the condition of Mrs. Ware's eyes, to state in the presence of the Jury that "the doctor did swear that the injury to the eyes was sympathetic." The contention is "that the failure of the court to rule out said statement was error." Even conceding that the conduct of counsel in making this remark was improper and harmful, it simply amounted to an unauthorized statement of fact by an...