Moon v. Kimberly, 42592
| Decision Date | 12 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 42592,No. 3,42592,3 |
| Citation | 116 Ga.App. 74,156 S.E.2d 414 |
| Parties | B. A. MOON v. Edward C. KIMBERLY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Northcutt & Edwards, W. S. Northcutt, Atlanta, for appellant.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Frank Love, Jr., John T. Marshall, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
B. A. Moon sued Edward C. Kimberly for damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when defendant's wife, operating defendant's family-purpose automobile, struck the plaintiff while he was walking across a parking lot on the premises of Delta Air Lines, Inc. at the Atlanta Municipal Airport. Upon the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. After making a motion for a new trial the plaintiff has appealed to this court, making here only two contentions of substance.
1. Plaintiff requested the court to charge the jury This request, while not in all respects a quotation, appears to have been patterned after the language of this court in the case of Lorig v. Brunson, 84 Ga.App. 558, 562, 66 S.E.2d 268. However, the mere fact that language has been employed by the reviewing court in discussing a case or in giving reasons and argument for a particular decision does not always render such language appropriate for use by the trial judge in charging the jury. Hunt v. Pollard, 55 Ga.App. 423, 426, 190 S.E. 71. In this case the language of the request was argumentative in favor of the plaintiff's position, and, as worded, was confusing. Furthermore, the trial court in its charge instructed the jury as to the respective rights of pedestrians and operators of automobiles on private parking lots, using less argumentative language and in more abstract terms which, in substance, submitted the principles embodied in the request. As pointed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holcomb v. Kirby, s. 43112
...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(2), 156 S.E.2d 414; City of Douglas v. Rigdon, 116 Ga.App. 306(2), 157 S.E.2d 66, and Hawkins v. State, 116 Ga.App. 448, 157 S.E.2d 800. The......
-
Adams v. Smith
...whereas the evidence could have been construed to mean that defendant deliberately inflicted injuries upon plaintiff. Moon v. Kimberly, 116 Ga.App. 74, 75, 156 S.E.2d 414. It is true that the language is found substantially in Richardson v. Pollard, 57 Ga.App. 777, 778, 781, 196 S.E. 199, b......
-
Zambetti v. Cheeley Invs., L.P., A17A1052
...substantial error as to require reversal of the case, in the absence of a proper [objection] to the charge." Moon v. Kimberly, 116 Ga. App. 74, 75 (2), 156 S.E.2d 414 (1967). Accordingly, we find no substantial error that was harmful as a matter of law. (c) Zambetti contends that the trial ......
-
Parham v. Roach
...courts is not always appropriate for a charge on the trial of a case. Hogan v. Hogan, 196 Ga. 822, 825, 28 S.E.2d 74; Moon v. Kimberly, 116 Ga.App. 74(1), 156 S.E.2d 414. We find no error in the denial of this 4. Error is enumerated on a charge of comparative negligence. An examination of t......