Smith v. Mobley, 75647
| Decision Date | 17 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 75647,75647 |
| Citation | 185 Ga.App. 462,364 S.E.2d 597 |
| Parties | SMITH v. MOBLEY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ben B. Mills, Jr., Fitzgerald, for appellant.
J. Harvey Davis, Ocilla, James B. Thagard, William A. Turner, Jr., Valdosta, for appellee.
Glenn D. Smith brought suit against Gerald Mobley for personal injuries and damages to his pick-up truck which he claims he sustained when his vehicle was struck in the rear by a truck driven by Mobley while he was stopped and waiting to make a left turn. The jury found for the defendant and Smith appeals, contending that the trial court erred in charging the parties' contentions the doctrine of last clear chance, and accident. Held:
1. Appellant's contention that the court below erroneously charged one of the defendant's contentions by attributing it to the plaintiff is without merit because appellant did not raise an objection to this portion of the charge. An examination of the trial transcript reveals that the issue was raised below only by the defendant and not by appellant. As appellant did not raise the issue in the court below, it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Lynn v. State, 181 Ga.App. 461, 352 S.E.2d 602 (1986).
2. The evidence showed that at the time of the collision a light, drizzling rain was falling. Appellant had stopped his truck and was waiting for traffic to clear before making a left turn. His truck was struck in the rear by the defendant's truck, which the defendant claimed he was driving at approximately 30-35 m.p.h. He admits that he saw the plaintiff's truck stopped in the road ahead and positioned at an angle as if to make a turn. Mobley applied the brakes in a normal manner and his vehicle hydroplaned out of control, striking Smith's truck. Mobley claims that he saw Smith look back at him in the rearview mirror, but that the appellant took no evasive action and merely braced himself for the impact. Smith testified that immediately before the collision he saw Mobley's truck approaching, but taking evasive action would have required him to move his truck forward into oncoming traffic, so he braced himself in case the approaching vehicle could not stop.
Under OCGA § 51-11-7, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. Dalton
...the plaintiff's perilous situation, and realizes, or has reason to realize, the plaintiff's helpless condition.' " Smith v. Mobley, 185 Ga.App. 462(2), 364 S.E.2d 597 (1988). The only possible source of evidence of appellee's awareness of appellant's peril was appellee's own testimony, but ......
-
Stallings v. Cuttino
...injury." (Indention omitted.) Shuman v. Mashburn, 137 Ga.App. 231, 235-236(3), 223 S.E.2d 268 (1976). See also Smith v. Mobley, 185 Ga.App. 462, 463(2), 364 S.E.2d 597 (1987). Pretermitting whether plaintiffs have made the proper showing as to the first element, our review of the record sho......
-
Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Cole, 77287
...was made, and it was therefore waived. Errors not raised in the court below cannot be considered on appeal. Smith v. Mobley, 185 Ga.App. 462, 364 S.E.2d 597 (1988). 6. Appellant further claims that the court below erred in permitting the plaintiff to make arguments which encouraged the jury......
-
Townsend v. Wright
...apply to this case and may have misled the jury, the court's error was harmful and a new trial is required. See Smith v. Mobley, 185 Ga.App. 462, 463(2), 364 S.E.2d 597 (1988). 2. The Townsends claim the court erred in charging the jury "that it would be normally the duty of a parent to see......