Pinholster v. McGinnis, 60188
| Decision Date | 05 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 60188,60188 |
| Citation | 271 S.E.2d 722,155 Ga.App. 589 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PINHOLSTER v. McGINNIS. |
Richard J. Harris, Savannah, for appellant.
Frederick W. Kramer, III, John G. Kennedy, Savannah, for appellee.
The appellant minor, a passenger in an automobile stopped for an intersection red light in a line of traffic, filed this action by next friend seeking damages for alleged back injuries incurred when a car driven by the defendant collided with the rear of the vehicle in which he was riding. The case hinges on the propriety of a jury verdict for the defendant returned under rather unusual circumstances. The verdict as originally signed and returned read: "We the jury find the defendant guilty of negligence but not liable." The court asked counsel whether they wanted a jury clarification of the verdict and both sides agreed. The foreman then said: "Well, we felt that there was no doubt that Mrs. McGinnis was negligent in the fact that she admitted that her foot apparently slipped on the brake but ... we still could not say definitely that this back problem was caused by the accident ... when you were charging us the first thing you said (was) that the defendant could be negligent but not liable and this is what we felt." Asked if this meant that the plaintiff did not prove any damages, she replied, "Right." The court then, in order to be sure that the jurors were unanimous in that understanding returned them to the jury room. He then recalled and again questioned them. The foreman repeated: "We felt Mrs. McGinnis was negligent in the accident, the evidence that we saw ... we did not feel that the accident was the cause of this low back pain." The jury was then returned with two options-a money verdict for the plaintiff or a general verdict for the defendant-and returned the latter.
1. It is contended that the court should have granted the motion for mistrial upon reception of the first verdict, or the motion for directed verdict on the issue of liability. A verdict may be amended in substance before the jury disperses so as to express the true finding of the jury. Code § 110-111; Monroe v. Alden, 61 Ga.App. 829(1), 7 S.E.2d 424 (1940). Here all parties agreed to the method employed by the trial judge in questioning the jury and it is clear from the colloquy between the court and the foreman that there was a firm and unanimous conclusion that, regardless of the defendant's negligence in causing the rear end collision, this event was not the cause of the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc. v. CMES, Inc.
...128 Ga. 434, 437–438(1), 57 S.E. 692 (1907); Conner v. Hart, 252 Ga.App. 92, 94(1)(a), 555 S.E.2d 783 (2001); Pinholster v. McGinnis, 155 Ga.App. 589(1), 271 S.E.2d 722 (1980). “[S]ome injury [or damage]—even if small or nominal—is necessary. [Cit.]” Conner v. Hart, supra. For example, in H......
- Miller v. State, 60131
-
Dracs Consulting Grp., Inc. v. V-Soft Consulting Grp., Inc.
...Even if such were error, Georgia law clearly provides that a judgment will not be reversed for such an error. Pinholster v. McGinnis, 155 Ga. App. 589, 271 S.E.2d 722 (1980). Thus, no reversible error occurred. We view any remaining contentions of error as moot or without merit. For the for......