Green v. Knight
| Decision Date | 04 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 58439,58439 |
| Citation | 153 Ga.App. 183,264 S.E.2d 657 |
| Parties | GREEN et al. v. KNIGHT et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James E. Hardy, Atlanta, Talmadge Woodman, Austell, for appellants.
John H. Stanford, Jr., Michael G. Frick, Arnold Wright, Jr., George W. Hart, Atlanta, for appellees.
Appellants brought an action against appellees for the wrongful death of their mother. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellee Williams Brothers Lumber Company and the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee Knight. Judgment was entered in favor of appellees. We affirm the judgment in favor of appellee Williams Brothers. However, due to an error in the charge, we must reverse the judgment in favor of appellee Knight.
On the morning of May 19, 1976, appellants' mother and another individual were riding on U. S. I-20 East in a car driven by appellee Knight. The car was in an "Exit Only" lane. However, appellee Knight did not want to exit. She attempted to remain on U. S. I-20 by crossing over an emergency zone marked by a series of white lines on the pavement. Due to the traffic on U. S. I-20, appellee Knight was unable to move into the right lane of the interstate. She went into a skid and collided with the back of a truck owned and operated by appellee Williams Brothers. (The truck was parked in the emergency zone because the driver of the truck thought he heard lumber on the back of the truck shifting about and he wanted to make sure it was properly secured.) Appellants' mother, who was sitting in the passenger seat of appellee Knight's automobile, died as a result of the collision.
1. At the close of the evidence, appellee Williams Brothers moved for directed verdict
CPA § 50(a) (Code Ann. § 81A-150(a) states: " . . . A motion for directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor . . ." In the instant case, appellee Williams Brothers did not state the specific grounds on which its motion was based. It merely asserted that appellants failed to make out a prima facie case of negligence. Nonetheless, the trial court granted the motion.
In our view, where a motion for directed verdict is granted and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the judgment of the trial court should not be reversed merely because the moving party failed to properly specify the grounds on which the motion is based. See Smith v Guthrie, 557 S.W.2d 163 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); Granato v. Bravo, 498 S.W.2d 499 (Tex.Civ.App.1973). Some jurisdictions have based this holding on the theory that "the adverse party who did not make a specific objection at trial to movant's failure to state specific grounds . . . is precluded from raising the objection on appeal . . ." Byerly v. Byerly, 38 N.C.App. 551, 248 S.E.2d 433 (1978). In the case at bar, we can base our holding either upon this theory or upon the doctrine of harmless error. See CPA § 61 (Code Ann. § 81A-161); Granato v. Bravo, supra.
The evidence in this case demands that judgment be entered in favor of appellee Williams Brothers. The only act or omission cited by appellants which could even arguably raise a jury question as to appellee's negligence is the alleged failure of appellee to comply with Code § 68-1709, which requires a 12-inch square red flag to be hung from a load which extends more than four feet beyond the back of a vehicle. However, even if this omission was negligence per se, it was, as a matter of law, not a cause in fact of appellants' mother's death and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grabowski v. Radiology Associates, P.A.
...to [the grant of a directed verdict] is right for any reason, it will be affirmed by the appellate courts." In Green v. Knight, 153 Ga.App. 183(1), 264 S.E.2d 657 (1980), a party had made a motion for directed verdict, but had failed to specify the grounds upon which the motion was premised......
-
Simms v. Camp Concrete Co., 60231
...in order to alert traffic behind him, his failure to do so was of no consequence in relation to the collision. See Green v. Knight, 153 Ga.App. 183(2), 264 S.E.2d 657 (1980). "Since there was no evidence that the collision was an 'unintended occurrence which could not have been prevented by......
-
Waddy v. Scottish Rite Children's Medical Center, A96A0585
...proof she cited in opposition to Scottish Rite's motion for directed verdict. These assertions are without merit. In Green v. Knight, 153 Ga.App. 183, 184(1), 264 S.E.2d 657, the trial court granted the movant's motion for directed verdict even though the movant failed to state specific gro......
-
Justus v. Justus
...burden of showing that Kelley knew that he was Deena's father. Nevertheless, we find that here, as in Green v. Knight, 153 Ga.App. 183, 184-185(1), 264 S.E.2d 657 (1980) (cited in Grabowski as an exception to the rule created there, id. 181 Ga.App. at 300 n. 1, 352 S.E.2d 185), this ground ......