Delaney v. Lakeside Villa, Ltd.

Decision Date01 October 1993
Docket NumberNo. A93A1941,A93A1941
PartiesDELANEY v. LAKESIDE VILLA, LTD. et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Steven J. Strelzik, Atlanta, for appellant.

Greene, Buckley, Jones & McQueen, Frank C. Schenck, Atlanta, for appellees.

BIRDSONG, Presiding Judge.

Donna Delaney appeals the judgment entered on the jury verdict for appellee/defendant.

Appellant/plaintiff Delaney brought suit against appellee Lakeside Villa, Ltd., for damages sustained when her apartment was burglarized. Appellant contended that appellee failed to safeguard the spare keys to apartments; and that, after keys had been taken approximately fourteen months earlier during the course of an office break-in, appellee failed to give adequate warning to the tenants. Held:

1. Appellant's enumeration that the trial court erred by giving a so-called time-fuze charge has been abandoned. Court of Appeals Rule 15(c)(2). Further, appellant took no timely exception or objection to this charge at trial. OCGA § 5-5-24(a). Appellant also failed to establish that such charge resulted in prejudicial error. Compare Williams v. State, 205 Ga.App. 445, 446(3), 422 S.E.2d 309.

2. Appellant waived the error asserted in Enumeration 1(a). Unless appellant makes a timely objection or exception on a specific ground to a charge, appellate consideration of that particular charging issue is waived on appeal. Compare Brown v. Department of Transp., 194 Ga.App. 530(2), 391 S.E.2d 32. Appellant neither excepted nor objected to the charge based on the specific ground asserted in Enumeration 1(a).

Even specific exceptions or objections to charges must be expressed with sufficient clarity to enable a trial court to ascertain promptly the precise nature of the asserted error, and thus be afforded a meaningful opportunity to take timely and effective corrective action if warranted. The trial court was not given such notice regarding Enumeration 1(a); for this additional reason, the charging error therein asserted has not been preserved on appeal. Moreover, a party cannot complain of error that her own legal strategy, trial procedure, or conduct aided in causing. West v. Nodvin, 196 Ga.App. 825, 829(3e), 397 S.E.2d 567.

3. Appellant contends the trial court erred in its proximate cause charge to the jury as the instruction was confusing in that it indicated appellant must exclude every other potential proximate cause, except that of the alleged operative cause, in order to recover. Specifically, appellant claims that the language of the charge "implies" she must prove the failure of appellee to secure the keys of its tenants was the sole proximate cause of her damages, rather than the proximate cause thereof. The contested charge states inter alia that "a possible cause cannot be accepted by the jury as the operative cause unless the evidence excludes all others or shows something in the way of a direct connection with the occurrence." In Stapleton v. Stapleton, 87 Ga.App. 417, 418-419, 74 S.E.2d 116, this court accepted the contested charging language as a correct abstract principle of law, but found it to be not applicable under the attendant circumstances of that case. We are not convinced that this legal principle was not applicable in the case at bar, where the alleged loss of keys occurred months before the break-in of appellant's apartment.

Pretermitting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Redfearn v. HUNTCLIFF HOMES ASS'N, INC.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 14, 2003
    ...complain of error that (its) own legal strategy, trial procedure, or conduct aided in causing. (Cit.)' Delaney v. Lakeside Villa, Ltd., 210 Ga.App. 430(2), 440 S.E.2d 668 (1993).'" Sharpe v. Dept. of Transp., 270 Ga. 101, 103, 505 S.E.2d 473 Such stipulation, when agreed to by the Associati......
  • Sharpe v. Department of Transp.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1998
    ...complain of error that [its] own legal strategy, trial procedure, or conduct aided in causing. [Cit.]" Delaney v. Lakeside Villa, Ltd., 210 Ga.App. 430(2), 440 S.E.2d 668 (1993). Because DOT's objection was insufficient to notify the trial court that DOT did not agree with the method used t......
  • Russell v. PARKFORD MANAGEMENT CO., INC., A98A1905.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 2, 1998
    ...cited certain federal court decisions. While federal court authority is persuasive, it is not binding. Delaney v. Lakeside Villa, Ltd., 210 Ga.App. 430, 431(3), 440 S.E.2d 668 (1993). Generally, this Court adopts federal court authority only when it is not in conflict with our own legal pre......
  • Hancock v. Bryan County Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 14, 1999
    ...(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hambrick v. State, 256 Ga. 688, 690(3), 353 S.E.2d 177 (1987). See also Delaney v. Lakeside Villa, 210 Ga. App. 430(3), 440 S.E.2d 668 (1993). Here, the trial judge instructed the jury on Hancock's burden of proof and the necessity that Hancock's injury ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT