Partridge v. Lee, 43222
| Decision Date | 05 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 43222,43222,3 |
| Citation | 159 S.E.2d 113,116 Ga.App. 800 |
| Parties | H. F. PARTRIDGE et al. v. James C. LEE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The trial judge properly excluded evidence that the plaintiff received reimbursement from his insurance company since such fact constituted no defense to the plaintiff's claim for damages to his vehicle.
2. Where no objection is made to a charge before the jury returned its verdict, absent substantial error which was harmful as a matter of law, an enumeration complaining of the charge presents nothing for review.
James C. Lee brought an action for damages against H. F. Partridge, t/a Partridge Lumber Company, and Douglas W. Moon in the Lincoln Superior Court. The petition alleged that the plaintiff's truck, while being operated on Highway 47 in Lincoln County, collided with a truck owned by the defendant Partridge, while being operated by his agent and servant, the defendant Moon; that as a result of this collision the plaintiff suffered designated personal injuries and damages to his truck in a specified amount; that the proximate cause of the collision and the resulting injuries and damages to the plaintiff was the negligence of the defendant Moon in the following particulars: operating the vehicle to the left of the center line, turning to the left without giving an appropriate signal, failing to yield the right of way and failing to keep a diligent lookout ahead. The defendants answered denying the material allegations of the petition and the defendant Partridge filed a counterclaim in which he sought recovery from the plaintiff for damages to his truck. The case proceeded to trial resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendants filed a motion for a new trial. The motion for new trial was overruled and the defendants now appeal to this court.
Walton Hardin, Washington, for appellants.
Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler, Harper & Reed, William C. Reed, Augusta, Ben B. Ross, Lincolnton, for appellee.
J. KELLEY QUILLIAN, Judge.
1. This appeal raises two principal questions which will be considered in the order in which they were argued. The first question presented by the appeal is whether the trial court committed error in refusing to allow the defendant to introduce into evidence a proof of loss and loan receipt and a letter from an insurance company, and to cross examine the plaintiff and defendant concerning these documents. It was argued that they would show the plaintiff no longer had an interest in the vehicle for which he sought damages and that the plaintiff had settled for an amount less than that he sought in the instant suit.
This court has held that the fact of insurance is not before the court in an action for damages. Harper Warehouse, Inc. v. Henry Chanin Corp., 102 Ga.App. 489, 493(4, 5), 116 S.E.2d 641. Moreover, whether the plaintiff might have received payment for his loss from a third party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schaefer v. Mayor and Council of City of Athens
...v. Henry Chanin Corp., 102 Ga.App. 489, 493, 116 S.E.2d 641; Patillo v. Thompson, 106 Ga.App. 808(1), 128 S.E.2d 656; Partridge v. Lee, 116 Ga.App. 800(1), 159 S.E.2d 113; and particularly Jones v. Hall, 57 Ga.App. 477(3), 195 S.E. 879, and Duncan v. Bailey, 162 Ga. 457(1, 2), 134 s,. e. 87......
-
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Hilley
...v. Hopson, 45 Ga.App. 762(7), 166 S.E. 45; Koon v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 90 Ga.App. 877, 879, 84 S.E.2d 703; Partridge v. Lee, 116 Ga.App. 800, 801, 159 S.E.2d 113. And see Powell v. Crowell, 63 Ga.App. 890(2), 11 S.E.2d 918; Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Stiles, 82 Ga.App. 254(2), 60 S......
-
Garrison v. Rich's
...payments made to the plaintiff by a third party. Thompson v. Milam, 115 Ga.App. 396, 397, 154 S.E.2d 721 (1967); Partridge v. Lee, 116 Ga.App. 800, 802, 159 S.E.2d 113 (1967). However, the collateral source rule does not apply here because the evidence introduced arose in connection with a ......
-
A.H. Friedman, Inc. v. Augusta Burglar Alarm Co.
...precludes proof of collateral benefits. Barrett v. Western & Atlantic R. Co., 144 Ga. 47, 85 S.E. 1016 (1915); Partridge v. Lee, 116 Ga.App. 800, 159 S.E.2d 113 (1967). To the extent the rationale of Bryan v. Bryan, 242 Ga. 826, 251 S.E.2d 566 (1979) [supra] differs with that expressed here......