King v. Adams, 41933
| Decision Date | 10 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 41933,No. 1,41933,1 |
| Citation | 149 S.E.2d 548,113 Ga.App. 708 |
| Parties | Laura KING v. Henry J. ADAMS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Gilbert, Patton & Carter, Horace E. Campbell, Atlanta, Coffin & Brinkley, Jack T. Brinkley, Columbus, for appellant.
George R. Jacob, Talbottom, Kelly, Champion & Henson, John W. Denney, Columbus, for appellee.
1. In her enumerations of error the appellant contends that the following charge of the court was error and cause for a new trial: Par. (a) of Sec. 17 of the Act (Ga.L.1965, pp. 18, 31; Code Ann. § 70-207), the 1965 Appellate Practice Act provides that, with the exceptions set forth in par. (c) of that section of the Act, no party may complain of the giving of an instruction to the jury unless he objects thereto before the jury returns a verdict. Par. (c) thereof provides that '(n) otwithstanding any other provision of this section, the appellate courts shall consider and review erroneous charges where there was been a substantial error in the charge which was harmful as a matter of law, regardless of whether objection was made hereunder or not.' The charge contended to be error here, if error at all, was not such a substantial error or harmful as a matter of law so as to bring it within the exception to the requirement that a party wishing to complain of an instruction must object thereto before the jury returns its verdict. The contention of the appellant here is that the first clause of this instruction submitted to the jury the issue of whether or not the plaintiff's son had suffered an injury as a result of the collision in question, when this fact was admitted by the defendant. The charge was clearly not subject to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogan v. Olivera, 52664
...not meritorious. See Ga. L., 1965, pp. 18, 31; 1966, pp. 493, 498; 1968, pp. 1092, 1098 (Code Ann. § 70-207 (a, c)); King v. Adams, 113 Ga.App. 708(1), 149 S.E.2d 548; Barlow v. Rushin, 114 Ga.App. 304(1), 151 S.E.2d 199; Stubbs v. Daughtry, 115 Ga.App. 22(5), 153 S.E.2d Judgment affirmed. ......
-
Stubbs v. Daughtry, 42525
...his own safety, by reason of the fact that this was repeated several times in the charge, raises nothing for decision. King v. Adams, 113 Ga.App. 708(1), 149 S.E.2d 548; Strong v. Palmour, 113 Ga.App. 750(2), 149 S.E.2d 745; Nathan v. Duncan, 113 Ga.App. 630(6) 149 S.E.2d Judgment reversed.......
-
Bowers v. Fulton County
...and 8 will not be considered as the condemnee made no objection to such charges in the lower court as required by law. King v. Adams, 113 Ga.App. 708(1), 149 S.E.2d 548; Sakobie v. State, 115 Ga.App. 460(3), 154 S.E.2d 6. Where a witness for the condemnor, demnor, on direct examination, tes......
-
Saint v. Ryan
... ... See Strong v. Palmour, 113 Ga.App. 750, 149 S.E.2d 745; King v. Adams, 113 Ga.App ... 708, 149 S.E.2d 548; Vogt v. Rice, 114 Ga.App. 251, 150 S.E.2d 691 ... ...