Hill v. Rosser, 38507
| Decision Date | 18 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 38507,38507,2 |
| Citation | 102 Ga.App. 776,117 S.E.2d 889 |
| Parties | Roy HILL v. Harry ROSSER, Administrator |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harold A. Boggs, Danielsville, Erwin, Birchmore & Epting, Athens, for plaintiff in error.
R. Howard Gordon, Danielsville, Joseph J. Gaines, Athens, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The plaintiff in error, who was the defendant in an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the collision of two automobiles, excepts to the judgment of the Superior Court of Madison County denying his motion for a new trial on the general and for special grounds. This case was submitted on briefs without oral argument; and the plaintiff in error not having referred in his brief to the general grounds, they are considered abandoned. Held:
1. Special ground 1 assigns error on the admission in evidence of the conclusion of the witness as to the intoxicated condition of the defendant over the objection that said conclusion was without sufficient facts to support it. The witness, a State Highway Patrolman, testified that the defendant had admitted drinking several cans of beer prior to the accident, that several empty beer cans were found under the door of the defendant's automobile after the accident, that he smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath, and that from the manner in which he spoke and acted, the defendant appeared to be under the influence of some from of alcohol and in no condition to drive a car with safety. Such facts are sufficient to support the conclusion of the witness and thus the ground is without merit. Spence v. State, 83 Ga.App. 588, 63 S.E.2d 910; Murdock v. State, 96 Ga.App. 838, 101 S.E.2d 746.
2. Special ground 2 which complains that there was no evidence in the record to authorize the court to charge the provisions of Code, § 68-1625(a), relating to driving under the influence of intoxicating beverages, is likewise without merit.
3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, as disclosed by the evidence, it was a question for the jury as to whether the defendant was driving at a reasonable and prudent speed at the time of the collision of which this action arose. Accordingly, it was not error for the court to give in charge to the jury Code, § 68-1626(a), which provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fountain v. Smith, 38575
...not expert opinion testimony, but testimony as to an ultimate fact. Andrews v. State, 102 Ga.App. 423, 116 S.E.2d 345; Hill v. Rosser, 102 Ga.App. 776, 117 S.E.2d 889. These special grounds are without merit. Under the above ruling the charge assigned as error in special ground 12 was appli......
-
Simpson v. Reed
...trial judge, is so excessive as a matter of law as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias...." Hill v. Rosser, 102 Ga.App. 776, 777(4), 117 S.E.2d 889 (1960). See also Black & White Cab Co. v. Clark, 67 Ga.App. 170, 174(8), 19 S.E.2d 570 Judgment affirmed. McMURRAY, P.J., a......