Kirkman v. Miller
| Decision Date | 27 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 42826,No. 2,42826,2 |
| Citation | 156 S.E.2d 558,116 Ga.App. 78 |
| Parties | David E. KIRKMAN v. C. E. MILLER et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
E. T. Hendon, Jr., Decatur, for appellant.
Greene, Buckley, DeRieux, Moore & Jones, Burt DeRieux, Edgar A. Neely, III, James A. Eichelberger, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Although good practice would call for enumerating as error the inadequacy of jury's verdict for damages, under the Appellate Practice Act of 1965, as amended (Code Ann. §§ 6-701, 6-702, 6-810 and 6-1201), the question of inadequacy is sufficiently raised for consideration by this court where the overruling of the general grounds of a motion for a new trial is enumerated as error, and the question of the inadequacy of the verdict is presented and argued in the briefs. See Wall v. Rhodes, 112 Ga.App. 572(1), 145 S.E.2d 756.
2. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $2,000, as the result of an automobile accident, and this is argued as so inadequate as to call for a new trial. The record shows that much of the evidence of damages was couched in uncertain terms such as: 'would run around $110.00 a week'; 'Approximately'; 'some weeks it would run more than that and some weeks it would be little less than that'; Although the damages were low, they were not, under the evidence, subject to exact calculation and were not so inadequate as to be manifestly the result of gross mistake or undue bias and prejudice. Code § 105-2015; Strickland v. English, 115 Ga.App. 384(4), 154 S.E.2d 710; Stynchcombe v. Gooding Amusement Co., 110 Ga.App. 864(1), 140 S.E.2d 232; Price v. Whitley Const. Co., 91 Ga.App. 257, 266, 85 S.E.2d 528; Beecher v. Farley, 104 Ga.App. 785(1), 123 S.E.2d 184.
3. Although testimony concerning benefits received by the plaintiff under workmen's compensation was erroneously allowed over counsel's objection (see Hotel Equip. Co. v. Liddell, 32 Ga.App. 590, 124 S.E. 92, and Gay v. Greene, 91 Ga.App. 78, 84 S.E.2d 847), the prejudicial effect of this testimony was sufficiently alleviated by plaintiff testifying on re-direct that he was under a duty to reimburse the amount received, and further by the instructions to the jury, unobjected to, in regard to the rights of the insurance company on money paid pursuant to compensation benefit claims, so that there was no reversible error in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pilkenton v. Eubanks
...award of $500 was so inadequate as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias. Code § 105-2015; Kirkman v. Miller, 116 Ga.App. 78(2), 156 S.E.2d 558 (1967) and 4. Enumerated errors 3 and 4, complaining of failure to give certain charges which were not requested in writing as re......
-
Drake v. Shurbutt
...aside. However, the amount of damages was in controversy, and there is no merit in this contention. Code § 105-2015; Kirkman v. Miller, 116 Ga.App. 78(2), 156 S.E.2d 558; Pierson v. M & M Bus Co., 74 Ga.App. 537(1), 40 S.E.2d 561; Price v. Whitley Const. Co., 91 Ga.App. 257, 85 S.E.2d 528; ......
-
Tanksley v. Welch
...by the trial court. We have examined the transcript of evidence and find the applicable law to be stated thus in Kirkman v. Miller, 116 Ga.App. 78(2), 156 S.E.2d 558: 'Although the damages were low, they were not, under the evidence, subject to exact calculation and were not so inadequate a......
-
Davis v. Camp Concrete Products Co., 45490
...v. Whitley Construction Company, 91 Ga.App. 257, 85 S.E.2d 528; McBowman v. Merry, 104 Ga.App. 454, 122 S.E.2d 136; Kirkman v. Miller, 116 Ga.App. 78, 156 S.E.2d 558; Leonard v. Kirkpatrick, 118 Ga.App. 277, 163 S.E.2d As the verdict is authorized by the evidence, including no award for exe......