Prater v. Bertrand, A90A0975
| Decision Date | 04 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A0975,A90A0975 |
| Parties | PRATER v. BERTRAND. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ronald F. Chalker, Jesse E. Barrow III, Marietta, for appellant.
Chambers, Mabry, McClelland & Brooks, Arthur L. Myers, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Plaintiff William Donald Prater brought this action against defendant Jay Aaron Bertrand for injuries sustained in an automobile accident which occurred while plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile driven by defendant. The jury awarded plaintiff damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering but plaintiff appeals asserting the trial court committed certain errors. We affirm.
1. The trial court did not err in refusing to permit plaintiff's attorney to question defendant's witness, an adjuster for defendant's automobile insurance carrier, about her affiliation with the insurance company. Plaintiff argues this was an exception to the general rule against admitting evidence of liability insurance because he was entitled to impeach the witness' credibility by showing she was employed by defendant's insurance company. However, the record shows the witness was identified as a claims investigator working on behalf of the defendant. Thus the witness' affiliation with the defendant was adequately revealed to the jury. The trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination so as to exclude an unnecessary reference to liability insurance. See Southeast Transport Corp. v. Hogan Livestock Co., 133 Ga.App. 825, 828(3), 212 S.E.2d 638 (1975).
2. We reject plaintiff's argument that the claims investigator's testimony concerning admissions made by the plaintiff in a telephone conversation was inadmissible because a proper foundation was not laid concerning the identity of the person to whom the investigator was talking. Pursuant to plaintiff's direction, only a portion of the transcript was transmitted to this court. However, the comments of the trial judge in that portion of the transcript forwarded on appeal show the plaintiff admitted during his own testimony that he gave a statement to an investigator over the telephone. Although the admissibility of testimony relating to the contents of a telephone conversation requires the other party to the conversation to be identified by competent evidence, see Cannady v. Lamb, 146 Ga.App. 850(1), 247 S.E.2d 500 (1978), one method of establishing identity is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Famiglietti v. Brevard Medical Investors, Ltd.
-
Kmart Corp. v. Merriweather
...S.E.2d 731 (1998). 3. Gary v. Weiner, 233 Ga.App. 284, 285(2), 503 S.E.2d 898 (1998). 4. (Citation omitted.) Prater v. Bertrand, 197 Ga. App. 169, 170(3), 397 S.E.2d 562 (1990); see Carson v. Carson, 226 Ga.App. 659, 660(2), 487 S.E.2d 447 5. (Citations omitted.) Spivey v. State, 237 Ga. Ap......
-
Roberts v. Stennett
...court must affirm. See Campbell v. Crumpton, 173 Ga.App. 488(2) (326 SE2d 845) (1985) and cases cited therein." Prater v. Bertrand, 197 Ga.App. 169, 170(3), 397 S.E.2d 562. In the case sub judice, no full transcript of the trial proceedings have been filed in the trial court and none is inc......
-
Evans v. Department of Transp., A96A2304
...transcript, and only a portion of the evidence at trial was forwarded on appeal, this court must affirm." Prater v. Bertrand, 197 Ga.App. 169, 170(3), 397 S.E.2d 562 (1990). 3. Lastly, Evans argues the trial court erred in redacting a portion of an entry from a DOT engineer's job diary befo......