Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Barnette
| Decision Date | 11 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 42484,No. 1,42484,1 |
| Citation | 115 Ga.App. 17,153 S.E.2d 656 |
| Parties | METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC. v. Hayes F. BARNETTE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Dent Acree, Atlanta, for appellant.
Wallace, Wallace & Driebe, Albert B. Wallace, Jonesboro, Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler, Martin & Lowe, H. A. Stephens, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant appeals from a judgment for the plaintiff in a negligence action arising out of a collision by the defendant's bus with the rear of the plaintiff's automobile which was stopped at a red light. Held:
1. Enumerations of error 1, 2, 3 and 4 are without merit. No party can complain of the giving or the failure to give an instruction to the jury, unless he objects thereto before the jury returns its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Ga.L.1965, p. 18, as amended, Ga.L.1966, p. 493.
Under Sec. 17(c) of the Appellate Practice Act (Code Ann. § 70-207(c)) nothing is presented for consideration on appeal unless it appears that the error contended is 'blatantly apparent and prejudicial,' Holywood Baptist Church of Rome v. State Highway Dept., 114 Ga.App. 98, 99(3), 150 S.E.2d 271, and that a 'gross miscarriage of justice attibutable to it is about to result.' Nathan v. Duncan, 113 Ga.App. 630, 638(6b), 149 S.E.2d 383, 391. The enumerations of error here do not meet that test.
2. A pre-trial order, limiting the issues for trial, controls the subsequent course of the action unless modified at the trial. Code Ann. § 81-1014. Dumas v. Beasley, 218 Ga. 349, 128 S.E.2d 59.
The pre-trial order entered in this case specified only two issues neither of which was concerned with venue. No request was made to modify this order at any time prior to or during the trial; therefore, the defendant is bound by its provisions. Enumeration of error 5, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove venue, is without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 63591
...to it is about to result.' " Nathan v. Duncan, 113 Ga.App. 630, 638(6b), 149 S.E.2d 383 (1966).' Metropolitan Transit System v. Barnette, 115 Ga.App. 17, 153 S.E.2d 656 (1967)." Sullens v. Sullens, 236 Ga. 645, 646, 224 S.E.2d 921. Accord, Dehler, et al., v. Setliff, et al., 153 Ga.App. 796......
-
Holcomb v. Kirby, s. 43112
...98, 99(3), 150 S.E.2d 271; Southwire Co. v. Franklin Aluminum Co., 114 Ga.App. 337(2), 151 S.E.2d 493; Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Barnette, 115 Ga.App. 17(1), 153 S.E.2d 656; Windsor Forest, Inc. v. Rocker, 115 Ga.App. 317, 324(4), 154 S.E.2d 627; Moon v. Kimberly, 116 Ga.App. 74(......
-
Williams v. Kennedy
...attributable to it is about to result. Nathan v. Duncan, 113 Ga.App. 630, 638(6b), 149 S.E.2d 383." Metropolitan Transit System v. Barnette, 115 Ga.App. 17, 153 S.E.2d 656 (1967); Sullens v. Sullens, 236 Ga. 645, 224 S.E.2d 921 (1976); Durrett v. Farrar, 130 Ga.App. 298, 306, 203 S.E.2d 265......
-
Fowler v. Gorrell
... ... Mobiland, Inc., 139 Ga.App. 260(1), 228 S.E.2d 146 (1976), "which ... 630, 638(6b), 149 S.E.2d 383 (1966).' Metropolitan ... Transit System v. Barnette, 115 Ga.App. 17, 153 S.E.2d ... ...