Jackson v. Merritt Hardware Co, (No. 11974.)

• Decision Date: 02 May 1921
• Docket Number: (No. 11974.)
• Citation: 26 Ga.App. 747,107 S.E. 394
• Parties: JACKSON v. MERRITT HARDWARE CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

26 Ga.App. 747

107 S.E. 394

JACKSON

v.MERRITT HARDWARE CO.

(No. 11974.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

May 2, 1921.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; H. M. Mathews, Judge.

Action by Mrs. W. E. Jackson against the Merritt Hardware Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

John B. L. Smith and Grady C. Harris, both of Macon, for plaintiff in error.

Brock, Sparks & Russell, of Macon, for defendant in error.

JENKINS, P. J. [1-4] In her action for injuries resulting from having been run over by defendant's truck, the plaintiff claimed damages for pain and suffering, and also damages for the destruction of her watch, clothing, and other articles upon her person at the time she was injured. The damage to her property as well as the amount of such damage was undisputed. Her evidence as to severe personal injuries from deep wounds, and as to great suffering, was also uncontroverted by the defendant, except as to degree. The defendant's surgical witness swore that while the wounds were slight in the sense of not being permanentor disabling, they were none the less "painful" and required several weeks of treatment. The defendant, by its answer and proof, contended that it was not negligent, and that the plaintiff had been injured either by an accident or by her own fault. The jury found for the defendant.

In this court the plaintiff abandoned the general grounds of her motion for a new trial, and relied solely upon her exceptions to the charge. The instruction on the subject of damages was as follows:

"I charge you that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover for loss of time or loss of salary, but she is entitled to recover, if at all, for pain and suffering that she is supposed to have endured by reason of the injuries, by reason of the impact of this car upon her, and that you would determine from the evidence in the case as to the amount of recovery. A recovery is supposed to be in the nature of a compensation to her for pain and suffering she has undergone, and that is shown she will have to undergo. You look to the evidence as to that, under the rule that there is no guide or measure of compensation for damages of this sort except the conscience of an impartial juror to do what is right between the parties without bias or prejudice one way or the other. I charge you that under the law you may consider as coming under the head of pain and suffering any permanent impairment of ability of the...