Rutledge v. Glass
| Decision Date | 21 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46777,No. 2,46777,2 |
| Citation | 125 Ga.App. 549,188 S.E.2d 261 |
| Parties | James A. RUTLEDGE et al. v. John R. GLASS et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lee Hutcheson, Jonesboro, William H. Whaley, Glenville Haldi, Atlanta, for appellants.
George & George, William V. George, Forest Park, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Appellants, a defendant motorist and the Lumbermen's Mutual which carried the uninsured motorist coverage on the plaintiff's vehicle, have appealed on adverse verdict to this court after the overruling of their motion for new trial as amended. There are five enumerations of error. Held:
1. Plaintiff testified as to his purchase price of the automobile and study of want-ads and familiarity with prices of automobiles, and further testified as to make, model, and year, and the addition of new tires and a new water pump. This was sufficient foundation for him to testify as to the value of the car before the accident. With reference to the value after the accident, he not only testified specifically as to the parts damaged, but also provided itemized repair estimates from two shops. This too was sufficient foundation. No expert witness was needed. Code §§ 38-1708, 38-1709; National-Ben Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Darby, 48 Ga.App. 394(3), 172 S.E. 819; Johnson v. Rooks, 116 Ga.App. 394, 157 S.E.2d 527; Cordell Ford Co. v. Mullis, 121 Ga.App. 123, 173 S.E.2d 120.
2. Where an automobile owner elects not to make repairs to his damaged vehicle, the measure of damages is the difference in market value before and after the collision. Douglas v. Prescott, 31 Ga.App. 684, 121 S.E. 689; Lamon v. Perry, 33 Ga.App. 248, 125 S.E. 907; Mitchell v. Mullen, 45 Ga.App. 282(5), 164 S.E. 276; Hay v. Carter, 91 Ga.App. 540, 86 S.E.2d 532; Cooper v. Metropolitan Transit System, Inc., 117 Ga.App. 764, 161 S.E.2d 916. There was no error in the trial judge including this principle in his charge.
3. Where testimony of plaintiff wife describes her injuries arising out of auto collision and number of visits to a named doctor for treatment and the husband identifies the doctor's bill and states his payment thereof, it is not necessary to have the physician testify that the charges were reasonable and necessary. Code Ann. § 38-706.1. See also Smith v. Davis, 121 Ga.App. 704, 708, 175 S.E.2d 28, and Johnson v. Rooks, 116 Ga.App. 394, 397, 157 S.E.2d 527.
4. Where an insurer intervened in its own name in compliance with Code Ann. § 56-407.1(d) under an uninsured motorist situation, the trial court was correct in overruling a mistrial motion based on the contention that plaintiff had injected 'the uninsured motorist coverage.' Jiles v. Smith, 118 Ga.App. 569, 164 S.E.2d 730; Stone v. Cranfield, 122 Ga.App. 178, 176 S.E.2d 498.
5. The alleged error in permitting the insurer's motion to intervene to go out to the jury with the pleadings does not appear to have been arged in the court below nor in the motion for new trial as amended and, therefore, cannot be raised for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Phillips
...v. Smith, 118 Ga.App. 569, 164 S.E.2d 730 (1968); Stone v. Cranfield, 122 Ga.App. 178, 176 S.E.2d 498 (1970); and Rutledge v. Glass, 125 Ga.App. 549, 188 S.E.2d 261 (1972), "all stand for the proposition that it is permissible to make the jury aware of the fact that relief is sought against......
-
Bowling v. Gober
...418, 421(5), 319 S.E.2d 887; Southern Crate, etc., Co. v. McDowell, 163 Ga.App. 153, 155(3), 293 S.E.2d 541; Rutledge v. Glass, 125 Ga.App. 549, 550(2), 188 S.E.2d 261; Cobb & Eldridge, Ga.Law of Damages, Motor Vehicles, § 30-2, and cases cited at p. 524, n. 1. When a vehicle is destroyed t......
-
Lamb v. R.L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co., 73772
...foundation for him to testify as to the value of the car before the accident.... No expert witness was needed." Rutledge v. Glass, 125 Ga.App. 549(1), 188 S.E.2d 261 (1972). Plaintiff's testimony created an issue for jury determination as to his claim for diminished value of the automobile.......
-
Southern Crate & Veneer Co. v. McDowell
...damaged vehicle, the measure of damages is the difference in market value before and after the collision. [Cits.]" Rutledge v. Glass, 125 Ga.App. 549, 550, 188 S.E.2d 261. Yet, the plaintiff offered other evidence as to the loss of use of the vehicle in the form of reduced business profits ......