Ray v. Stinson
| Decision Date | 22 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 41811,41811 |
| Citation | 254 Ga. 375,329 S.E.2d 502 |
| Parties | RAY v. STINSON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jerry B. Hatcher, Hatcher, Irvin & Pressley, Atlanta, for Nancy S. ray.
Frank J. Klosik, Jr., Atlanta, for Barbara Jo Stinson et al.
We granted certiorari to consider whether a new trial was required in this case based upon a special jury verdict which awarded an amount in excess of proven special damages and awarded nothing for pain and suffering. Ray v. Stinson, 172 Ga.App. 718, 324 S.E.2d 506 (1984). In granting the writ, this Court also posed a question to the parties on whether the error, if any, was waived by plaintiff's failure to object to the charge of the court and the form of the verdict. Upon our examination of the record we find that if there is error, the overruling of the motion for new trial must be affirmed in view of the failure to object to the charge of the court and the form of the verdict.
Plaintiff contends that the failure to object to the charge authorizing the verdict in this case does not constitute waiver because the error was "substantial" and "harmful as a matter of law." OCGA § 5-5-24(c). However, we do not find that the error has resulted in "gross injustice" or the denial of a fair trial, Nelson v. Miller, 169 Ga.App. 403, 405, 312 S.E.2d 867 (1984), in this case. After the return of the verdict which plaintiff contends is invalid on its face, counsel for plaintiff responded in the affirmative when asked by the court if the verdict was in proper order. The court then inquired if there was anything further before the jury could be discharged, which received a negative reply.
Under these circumstances, we hold that the claim to a new trial on the basis of the form of the verdict has been waived and it is unnecessary to reach the merits of plaintiff's contention.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., Inc. v. Paul Associates, Inc., s. A98A0179
...of the verdict. Thus, the defendants waived any grounds as to inconsistency or other irregularities in the verdict. Ray v. Stinson, 254 Ga. 375, 329 S.E.2d 502 (1985); Knisely v. Gasser, 198 Ga.App. 795, 403 S.E.2d 85 (b) "[T]he primary question for determination is whether the evidence int......
-
Evans v. Rockdale Hosp., LLC.
...(1), 401 S.E.2d 590 (1991), and Ray v. Stinson , 172 Ga.App. 718, 719-720 (1), 324 S.E.2d 506 (1984), aff'd on other grounds, 254 Ga. 375, 329 S.E.2d 502 (1985). Both cases, however, are distinguishable from the present case.In Salvador , the jury "awarded plaintiffs a total amount equal to......
-
Georgia Ports Authority v. Hutchinson
...be followed when the ruling of the trial court constitutes substantial error and is harmful as a matter of law. See Ray v. Stinson, 254 Ga. 375, 329 S.E.2d 502 (1985). 1 In Cox Enterprises v. Carroll City/County Hosp. Auth., 247 Ga. 39, 46, 273 S.E.2d 841 (1981), our Supreme Court held that......
-
Curran v. Scharpf
...create a rule where form would trump substance in a manner that makes no sense. In this connection, to the extent that Ray v. Stinson, 254 Ga. 375, 329 S.E.2d 502 (1985) can be read to support the anomalous conclusion that a party's failure to object to the form of a verdict results in the ......