Sollek v. Laseter, No. 46041
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | BELL |
| Citation | 183 S.E.2d 86,124 Ga.App. 131 |
| Decision Date | 24 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46041,No. 1 |
| Parties | Judith H. SOLLEK v. Mary H. LASETER |
Page 86
v.
Mary H. LASETER.
[124 Ga.App. 132] Bryan, Carter, Ansley & Smith, James B. Gurley, Atlanta, for appellant.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, C. B. Rogers, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
[124 Ga.App. 131] BELL, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages arising out of an automobile collision. The defense the defendant pleaded was that the plaintiff had made an accord and satisfaction of all claims in the complaint and released the defendant from any and all claims. She attached to her answer a copy of an agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendant's insurance company. The defendant moved for a [124 Ga.App. 132] separate trial on the issue of whether the plaintiff made an accord and satisfaction. The trial court granted defendant's motion and certified the order for immediate review. Held:
Section 42(b) of the Civil Practice Act provides: 'The court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims * * * or issues.' Code Ann. § 81A-142(b). At trial it is highly probable that the fact that the defendant
Page 87
has the benefit of liability insurance will of necessity be brought to the attention of the triors of the fact, when the question of an accord and satisfaction is litigated. Interjecting into a case either by evidence or by way of argument that the defendant has liability insurance is a never ending potential source of prejudicial error and has caused many mistrials and reversals. See Wallace v. Cates, 120 Ga.App. 228, 170 S.E.2d 40. The granting of a separate trial as to any separate issue is a discretionary matter for the trial judge and there will be no reversal unless there is a clear and manifest abuse of that discretion. No abuse of discretion has been shown and the judgment isAffirmed.
PANNELL and DEEN, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitley v. Gwinnett County, No. A95A2136
...OCGA § 9-11-42(b). The decision to bifurcate is reviewed for clear and manifest abuse of discretion. Sollek[221 Ga.App. 20] v. Laseter, 124 Ga.App. 131, 132, 183 S.E.2d 86 (1971). Whitley has not shown how bifurcation prejudiced her. Inasmuch as we have upheld the bifurcation of the liabili......
-
Gorlin v. Halpern, Nos. 74025-74027
...thereof absent a clear and manifest abuse of that discretion. Lansky v. Goldstein, 141 Ga.App. 345, 233 S.E.2d 437; Sollek v. Laseter, 124 Ga.App. 131, 183 S.E.2d 86. In the case sub judice the documents at issue were listed in the pre-trial order among those to be offered at trial. Thus, d......
-
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Reybitz, Nos. A92A0103
...to the problem was to separate trial of these issues upon proper objection by the parties to the joinder. See Sollek v. Laseter, 124 Ga.App. 131, 183 S.E.2d 86 (1971). We do not agree with the trial court that its order joining appellee's claims against appellants is condoned by our holding......
-
Clayton v. Deverell, No. 45009
...there exists a statutory right to a jury trial with respect to the question of damages in this action in equity. Cf. Sollek v. Laseter, 124 Ga.App. 131, 183 S.E.2d 86 (1971). As previously stated, the award of specific performance does not, as a matter of law, preclude the appellees- Page 3......
-
Whitley v. Gwinnett County, A95A2136
...OCGA § 9-11-42(b). The decision to bifurcate is reviewed for clear and manifest abuse of discretion. Sollek[221 Ga.App. 20] v. Laseter, 124 Ga.App. 131, 132, 183 S.E.2d 86 (1971). Whitley has not shown how bifurcation prejudiced her. Inasmuch as we have upheld the bifurcation of the liabili......
-
Gorlin v. Halpern, s. 74025-74027
...thereof absent a clear and manifest abuse of that discretion. Lansky v. Goldstein, 141 Ga.App. 345, 233 S.E.2d 437; Sollek v. Laseter, 124 Ga.App. 131, 183 S.E.2d 86. In the case sub judice the documents at issue were listed in the pre-trial order among those to be offered at trial. Thus, d......
-
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Reybitz, s. A92A0103
...to the problem was to separate trial of these issues upon proper objection by the parties to the joinder. See Sollek v. Laseter, 124 Ga.App. 131, 183 S.E.2d 86 (1971). We do not agree with the trial court that its order joining appellee's claims against appellants is condoned by our holding......
-
Black & White Const. Co., Inc. v. Bolden Contractors, Inc., 76372
...437 (1977). In such cases, there is no reversible error absent a clear and manifest abuse of that discretion. See Sollek v. Laseter, 124 Ga.App. 131, 132, 183 S.E.2d 86 (1971). We find no such abuse of discretion Finally, appellants do not specify what particular evidence, if any, relating ......