McEntyre v. McRae, No. A99A1936.
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | JOHNSON, Chief. |
| Citation | 240 Ga. App. 148,522 S.E.2d 731 |
| Decision Date | 24 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. A99A1936. |
| Parties | McENTYRE v. McRAE et al. |
522 S.E.2d 731
240 Ga. App. 148
v.
McRAE et al
No. A99A1936.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
September 24, 1999.
Newton, Smith, Durden, Kaufold & Rice, Wilson R. Smith, Vidalia, for appellees.
JOHNSON, Chief Judge.
Annelle McRae sued Lorene McEntyre for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Her husband also joined the suit, alleging loss of consortium. Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the McRaes. McEntyre appeals from the judgment entered on the jury verdict. We affirm.
1. McEntyre contends the trial court erred in denying her motion to exclude the expert opinion testimony of Drs. Bryan Siddall and Todd Gracen because they had not been identified as expert witnesses in response to her interrogatories. We disagree.
While the record shows that these two doctors were not formally identified as expert witnesses in response to the interrogatory question, it is undisputed that: (1) McRae identified both doctors in her answers to interrogatories as her treating physicians; (2) McRae identified both doctors in her trial brief as "may call" witnesses; and (3) McEntyre's counsel had obtained the medical records of these doctors during discovery.
It is well established that the admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. American Petroleum Products v. Mom & Pop Stores, 231 Ga.App. 1, 7(3), 497 S.E.2d 616 (1998). In the present case, the trial court denied McEntyre's motion in limine, [240 Ga. App. 149] finding that it should have been obvious to anyone associated with the case that the plaintiff's treating doctors were going to give expert testimony. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the evidence.
Moreover, "[e]xclusion of probative trial evidence is not an appropriate remedy for curing an alleged discovery...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camp v. Coweta County, No. A04A2289.
...because they add no evidence to the record. In the Interest of C.M., 258 Ga.App. 387, 388(2), 574 S.E.2d 433 (2002); McEntyre v. McRae, 240 Ga.App. 148, 150(3), 522 S.E.2d 731 On this basis alone, the ante litem notice was insufficient. See Dempsey v. Bd. of Regents, etc. of Ga., 256 Ga.App......
-
Jones v. State, A16A2058
...commenced on or after" January 1, 2013).10 Zilinmon v. State, 234 Ga. 535, 537 (3), 216 S.E.2d 830 (1975) ; accord McEntyre v. McRae, 240 Ga.App. 148, 149 (2), 522 S.E.2d 731 (1999) ; Atlanta Fire Sys., Inc. v. Alexander Underwriters Gen. Agency, Inc., 185 Ga.App. 873, 875 (4), 366 S.E.2d 1......
-
Langlois v. Wolford, No. A00A2205.
...will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. O'Neal v. State, 254 Ga. 1, 3(3), 325 S.E.2d 759 (1985); McEntyre v. McRae, 240 Ga.App. 148(1), 522 S.E.2d 731 (1999). The trial court properly exercised his discretion in admitting evidence of prior similar conduct under the facts a......
-
Maurer v. State, No. A99A1460.
...525 S.E.2d 106 448 S.E.2d 471. Therefore, the testing was justified. Judgment affirmed. McMURRAY, P.J., and ANDREWS, P.J., concur. [240 Ga. App. 148]...
-
Camp v. Coweta County, No. A04A2289.
...because they add no evidence to the record. In the Interest of C.M., 258 Ga.App. 387, 388(2), 574 S.E.2d 433 (2002); McEntyre v. McRae, 240 Ga.App. 148, 150(3), 522 S.E.2d 731 On this basis alone, the ante litem notice was insufficient. See Dempsey v. Bd. of Regents, etc. of Ga., 256 Ga.App......
-
Jones v. State, A16A2058
...commenced on or after" January 1, 2013).10 Zilinmon v. State, 234 Ga. 535, 537 (3), 216 S.E.2d 830 (1975) ; accord McEntyre v. McRae, 240 Ga.App. 148, 149 (2), 522 S.E.2d 731 (1999) ; Atlanta Fire Sys., Inc. v. Alexander Underwriters Gen. Agency, Inc., 185 Ga.App. 873, 875 (4), 366 S.E.2d 1......
-
Langlois v. Wolford, No. A00A2205.
...will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. O'Neal v. State, 254 Ga. 1, 3(3), 325 S.E.2d 759 (1985); McEntyre v. McRae, 240 Ga.App. 148(1), 522 S.E.2d 731 (1999). The trial court properly exercised his discretion in admitting evidence of prior similar conduct under the facts a......
-
Maurer v. State, No. A99A1460.
...525 S.E.2d 106 448 S.E.2d 471. Therefore, the testing was justified. Judgment affirmed. McMURRAY, P.J., and ANDREWS, P.J., concur. [240 Ga. App. 148]...