Howell v. George
| Decision Date | 19 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | 36473. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOWELL v. GEORGE. |
Thos. J. Tubb, of West Point, for appellant.
Thos. F. Paine, of Aberdeen, for appellee.
Appellee obtained a judgment for damages against appellant in the Circuit Court of Monroe County for injuries alleged to have been sustained by him, his wife, his two minor children, and his car, resulting from a collision between appellee's car, in which he and his family were at the time, and a bus belonging to appellant and being operated in his business by his employee.
From the judgment, appellant brought the case here on appeal, and assigns a number of errors, but of these, we have decided that only three should be discussed.
Complaint is made that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence an ordinance of the City of Aberdeen, in which city the accident occurred, for the reason that it was not pleaded in the declaration. In dealing specifically with negligence cases, the authorities are divided on this question. 38 Am.Jur., Sec. 330, p. 1028. It is not necessary however, for us to adopt any view of such issue here because of the identical provisions as to the applicable speed limit in the ordinance and the statute, and the allegation of the declaration that appellant was 'running at a reckless speed in disregard of the rights of the other travelers on the street and in violation of the law.' The ordinance makes it unlawful to drive a motor vehicle over twenty miles an hour in the corporate limits of the city. Section 8176, Code 1942, provides that: . There was substantial evidence here which the jury had a right to believe, and manifestly did believe since they returned a verdict for appellee that the speed of the bus was in excess of twenty miles per hour at the time of the collision, and that it occurred in the business district of Aberdeen. Such error, if error it be, was a harmless one, and not cause for reversal.
The granting of an instruction to appellee on the measure of damages is attacked on several grounds--among them, that it conflicts with a certain instruction granted appellant. With this contention, we cannot agree. The two instructions supplement each other, in our judgment. Nevertheless, the challenged instruction, standing alone, is somewhat subject to criticism, but its deficiencies are sufficiently supplied by the instructions granted appellant. See Ellis v. Ellis, 160 Miss. 345, 134 So. 150; Hitt v. Terry, 92 Miss. 671, 46 So. 829; Alabama & Vicksburg Ry. Co. v. Groome, 97 Miss. 201, 52 So. 703. Therefore, this assignment of error must be overruled.
This brings us to a more serious issue on the appeal, and that is whether or not the court below erred in admitting, over defendant's objection, the X-ray pictures of appellee's back, and the testimony of Dr. Jackson, explaining and identifying them. In Gulf Research Development Co. v. Linder, 177 Miss. 123, 170 So. 646, 648, we said: 'X-ray pictures, like photographs, maps, and diagrams, when material, are admitted in evidence on authentication which satisfies the court that the thing or person is fairly portrayed by the X-ray.' We also held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf Hills Dude Ranch, Inc. v. Brinson, 44099
...v. Poles, 248 Miss. 887, 162 So.2d 631 (1964); Union Producing Co. v. Pitmann, 245 Miss. 427, 146 So.2d 553 (1962); Howell v. George, 201 Miss. 783, 30 So.2d 603 (1947). The last error assigned by the appellant is that the amount of the verdict in the case is so excessive as to evince bias,......
- Reedy v. Alexander
-
Wallace v. State
... ... 509] one, addressed to ... sound discretion of court.' Gulf Research Development ... Co. v. Linder, 177 Miss. 123, 170 So. 646; Howell v ... George, Miss., 30 So.2d 603; 20 Am.Jur. p. 609, Sec ... 730. We cannot say the trial court erred in admitting these ... pictures in ... ...
-
Orr v. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co.
...with reasonable accuracy a given scene or object at a given time. Hancock v. State, Miss., 47 So.2d 833. Compare Howell v. George, 201 Miss. 783, 30 So.2d 603. Records before us abound in freehand drawings by the inartistic hands of witnesses and crude maps and sketches which attain relevan......
-
Internal pictures
...Meade v. Belcher , 212 Va. 796, 188 S.E.2d 211 (1972); Hartman v. Maryland Casualty Co ., 417 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1967); Howell v. George , 201 Miss. 783, 30 So.2d 603 (1947); Eaker v. International Shoe Co ., 199 N.C. 379, 154 S.E. 667 (1930). 8 Howard v. State , 342 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. 1976); H......
-
Internal Pictures
...Meade v. Belcher , 212 Va. 796, 188 S.E.2d 211 (1972); Hartman v. Maryland Casualty Co ., 417 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1967); Howell v. George , 201 Miss. 783, 30 So.2d 603 (1947); Eaker v. International Shoe Co ., 199 N.C. 379, 154 S.E. 667 (1930). 8 Howard v. State , 342 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. 1976); H......
-
Internal Pictures
...Meade v. Belcher , 212 Va. 796, 188 S.E.2d 211 (1972); Hartman v. Maryland Casualty Co ., 417 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1967); Howell v. George , 201 Miss. 783, 30 So.2d 603 (1947); Eaker v. International Shoe Co ., 199 N.C. 379, 154 S.E. 667 (1930). 8 Howard v. State , 342 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. 1976); H......
-
Internal Pictures
...Meade v. Belcher , 212 Va. 796, 188 S.E.2d 211 (1972); Hartman v. Maryland Casualty Co ., 417 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1967); Howell v. George , 201 Miss. 783, 30 So.2d 603 (1947); Eaker v. International Shoe Co ., 199 N.C. 379, 154 S.E. 667 (1930). 8 Howard v. State , 342 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. 1976); H......