Georgia Kraft Co. v. Faust, A91A0259
| Decision Date | 28 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A91A0259,A91A0259 |
| Citation | 200 Ga.App. 686,409 S.E.2d 247 |
| Parties | GEORGIA KRAFT COMPANY v. FAUST. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jones, Cork & Miller, Carr G. Dodson, Bradley J. Survant, Macon, for appellant.
Brown, Katz, Flatau & Hasty, S. Phillip Brown, Macon, for appellee.
Plaintiff, Robert Faust, sued defendant, Georgia Kraft Company, for damage done to Faust's trailer while it was being loaded by defendant's employees. Plaintiff obtained a jury verdict for general and punitive damages, and defendant appeals from the judgment entered thereon.
Plaintiff, the owner and operator of a tractor trailer truck, contracted with defendant to haul a load of paper. The sequence of events which led to the damage in this case occurred during a span of approximately ten hours, beginning with plaintiff's arrival at defendant's loading dock. Plaintiff testified that he backed his trailer up to the loading dock and defendant's employees proceeded to use a forklift to load plaintiff's trailer with rolls of paper weighing approximately 7,000 pounds each. Plaintiff testified that he got out of his truck to watch the loading and while on his way to the rear of the trailer, he heard the forklift engine "revving" as if it were moving at a high rate of speed. Plaintiff stated that he saw the forklift move into the trailer with such force that it caused the trailer to drop lower than the dock and then come back level. Plaintiff ran to the rear of the trailer to stop the forklift operator from once again driving into the trailer; however, by the time plaintiff got to the rear of the trailer, the forklift operator had driven into the trailer a second time, and the trailer floor had broken away from the right side wall of the trailer with the forklift still inside. One of defendant's supervisors who examined the damage ordered that a larger forklift be brought in to get the first forklift out of the trailer. The operator of the large forklift put the forks under the trailer and attempted to raise the trailer floor. According to plaintiff, in the operator's attempt to raise the trailer floor, he raised and dropped the trailer several times, and in the process broke the trailer floor until it hung almost to the ground. Plaintiff testified that he asked defendant's supervisor several times to stop the forklift operator from further destroying his trailer but that the supervisor ignored him and continued his effort to retrieve the forklift from the trailer. At defendant's request, plaintiff got into his truck and unsuccessfully attempted to pull the trailer away from the dock; however, he abandoned that attempt when he realized that he could not move the trailer and that any effort to do so would only further damage his trailer. Defendant's employees then attempted to use a crane to lift the trailer, and when that effort failed, the employees released the trailer causing it to fall to the ground, rupturing the fuel tank and destroying the entire front of the trailer. Defendant's supervisors then called in a bulldozer to push the trailer and forklift out of the parking lot. Plaintiff testified that he pleaded with the bulldozer operator not to ruin the refrigeration unit on his trailer but that the operator laughed and rammed the bulldozer into the refrigeration unit. At that point plaintiff left the scene. When defendant refused to either buy or rent plaintiff a new trailer, plaintiff settled with his insurance carrier and subsequently commenced this action against defendant.
1. Defendant contends in its first enumeration of error that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on comparative negligence. Defendant argues that plaintiff was negligent in failing to determine if his truck would haul a load of paper and in participating or acquiescing in the attempt to retrieve the forklift from the trailer. One of defendant's supervisors who saw the truck after the trailer floor caved in testified that the cross-member bars on the truck did not look very thick. The crew leader testified that he arrived on the scene after it had been determined that the trailer was damaged beyond repair. He examined the underside...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langlois v. Wolford
...where there was evidence to support a jury award of punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence. Ga. Kraft Co. v. Faust, 200 Ga. App. 686, 688(2), 409 S.E.2d 247 (1991). 2. The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his h......
-
Daniel v. Smith
...negligence, it is not error for the trial court to fail to give a charge on comparative negligence. Georgia Kraft Co. v. Faust, 200 Ga.App. 686, 688(2), 409 S.E.2d 247 (1991). Daniel contends that the jury could infer negligence from his testimony that Smith slowed as if to make a right han......
-
Mattarochia v. State
... ... The STATE ... No. A91A0252 ... Court of Appeals of Georgia ... July 9, 1991 ... Reconsideration Denied July 29, 1991 ... Ga.App ... ...
-
Flournoy v. Goble, No. A02A0436
...(1990) (physical precedent); see also Allen v. State, 247 Ga.App. 10, 14(2), 543 S.E.2d 45 (2000). 3. See Ga. Kraft Co. v. Faust, 200 Ga.App. 686, 688(1), 409 S.E.2d 247 (1991); Lovell v. Howard, 182 Ga.App. 891(2), 357 S.E.2d 600 4. Groover v. Dickey, 173 Ga.App. 73, 74(1), 325 S.E.2d 617 ......