Granger v. Nat'l Convoy & Trucking Co

• Decision Date: 23 February 1940
• Docket Number: Nos. 28065-28068.,s. 28065-28068.
• Citation: Granger v. Nat'l Convoy & Trucking Co, 62 Ga.App. 294, 7 S.E.2d 915 (Ga. App. 1940)
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: GRANGER et al. v. NATIONAL CONVOY & TRUCKING CO. et al. GRANGER. v. SAME. DEWEES . v. SAME (two cases).

7 S.E.2d 915

GRANGER et al.

v.NATIONAL CONVOY & TRUCKING CO. et al.

GRANGER.

v.SAME.

DEWEES .

v.SAME (two cases).

Nos. 28065-28068.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Feb. 23, 1940.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1940.

Syllabus by the Court.

The court erred in overruling the motions for new trial.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Edgar E. Pomeroy, Judge.

Suits by F. F. Granger and another, by F. F. Granger, by Mrs. T. S. Dewees and by T. S. Dewees, against the National Convoy & Trucking Company and another, for damages resulting from an automobile collision. Verdicts for defendants in each case, and to review an order overruling motions for new trial in each case, plaintiffs bring error.

Reversed.

T. S. Dewees, husband of Mrs. T. S. Dewees, sued the National Convoy and Trucking Co. and R. W. Woodward, its employee, the driver of the truck allegedly causing the injuries sued for, for damages for injuries to Mrs. Dewees allegedly resulting in expenses and loss of her services to him. Mrs. Dewees sued the same defendants for personal injuries alleged to have resulted to her from the negligence of the defendants. The petitions in these cases alleged that Mrs. Dewees was riding as a guest in a car driven by a sister of Mrs. Dewees, Mrs. Fred F. Granger. Fred F. Granger, husband of Mrs. Granger sued for the funeral expenses and medical expenses incurred by reason of the death of his wife and for damages to his Ford automobile in which his wife and Mrs. Dewees were riding. Fred F. Granger and Forrest Granger, only child of Mr. and Mrs. Granger, sued for the value of Mrs. Granger's life. These cases were tried together and resulted in a verdict for the defendants in each. The plaintiffs excepted separately to the overruling of a motion for new trial in each case. Since the questions involved are almost identical in the four cases, they will be decided together.

Fraser, Irwin & Latimer, of Atlanta, and James H. Paschall, of Calhoun, for plaintiffs in error.

Brandon, Hynds & Tindall and Wm. A. Mitchell, Jr., all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

FELTON, Judge.

1. An attorney for the plaintiffs was cross-examining D. W. Richards, a witness sworn for the defendant. The witness had testified as to a conversation had with the attorney stating that the attorney told him not to say anything about the attorney's coming to see him. The attorney then asked this question: "Was this not what happened--let me find out-- is this not what happened between you and me, did you say the Ford might have got damaged by being pulled out by the wrecker and did I not say you are just trying to figure out a way to help the insurance company--was that the way it happened?" The question was excluded. There was no error in excluding this question for any reason assigned in the exception taken to its exclusion. The reasons assigned as to why the exclusion of this evidence was error are: (a) Said question and answer so excluded was pertinent and material on the issue then being tried; (b) the rejection of such question by the court was prejudicial to plaintiff, and put the plaintiff in a false light before the jury, and tended to show misconduct on the part of the plaintiffs' lawyer by permitting only a part of a conversation he had with the witness to remain before the jury; (c) having permitted a part of said conversation to remain before the jury, the court should have permitted the entire conversation to be explained, in fairness to plaintiff and counsel; (d) movants expected the answer to the question to have been "Yes." Plaintiffs do not contend that the evidence...