Garis v. Eberling
Decision Date | 25 January 1934 |
Citation | 71 S.W.2d 215 |
Parties | GARIS v. EBERLING. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Hume & Armistead and Walter Stokes, all of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.
White & Howard, of Nashville, for defendant in error.
E. J. Eberling, as administrator of his infant daughter, Sylvia Joy Eberling, obtained a verdict for $10,000 and a judgment thereon in the circuit court of Davidson county against Roy L. Garis, defendant below, and after his motion for a new trial was overruled, Roy L. Garis appealed in error to this court and is here insisting, through assignments of error and briefs and oral arguments by able counsel, that there is no evidence to support the verdict and for that reason the trial court should have sustained the defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence.
It is further insisted that if the court should be of opinion that there was evidence to support a verdict for plaintiff, that the amount of the verdict is excessive, and so excessive as to indicate prejudice, passion, and caprice on the part of the jury.
There are other assignments of error, some of which challenge certain instructions to the jury as erroneous; others complain of the trial court's refusal to give the jury requested instructions; and one asserts that the trial judge erred, to the prejudice of the defendant below, in certain remarks or comments made by him in connection with his ruling upon an objection to testimony.
As a matter of convenience, we will designate the parties as they appear on the record of the trial court: E. J. Eberling, administrator, etc., as plaintiff; and Roy L. Garis as defendant.
Plaintiff's declaration contains two counts. The background out of which this action arose is well stated in the declaration, and in order that this, as well as the plaintiff's averments of negligence, may be seen, we will quote the declaration.
The first count is as follows:
The plaintiff reaffirmed and adopted the first eight paragraphs of the first count of the declaration as a part of the second count, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maher v. City of Casper
...S.E. 160, Gray v. Golden, 301 Ky. 477, 192 S.W.2d 371, Williams v. Town of Morristown, Tenn.App., 222 S.W.2d 607, 612, Garis v. Eberling, 18 Tenn.App. 1, 71 S.W.2d 215, Wolczek v. Public Service Co., 342 Ill. 482, 174 N.E. 577, 580, Clifton v. Patroon Operating Corp., 271 App.Div. 122, 63 N......
-
Third Nat. Bank v. American Equitable Ins. Co.
...155 Tenn. 266, 283, 284, 292 S.W. 451; Union Traction Co. v. Todd, 16 Tenn. App. 200, 208, 64 S.W.2d 26, 31; Garis v. Eberling, 18 Tenn.App. 1, 25, 26, 71 S.W. 2d 215, 229, 230; Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Clements, Davidson Law, Opinion (unreported) of Court of Appeals filed May 25, 19......
-
Chandler v. Massa, 18405.
...of tender years does not alter the rule. Ellis v. Orkin, Exterminators Co., 24 Tenn.App. 279, 143 S.W.2d 108 (1940); Garis v. Eberling, 18 Tenn.App. 1, 71 S.W.2d 215 (1934); 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 63 (61) at p. 782. In Tennessee, a landlord is liable to his tenant and to invitees of the ten......
- Garis v. Eberling