Stubbs v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 42648
| Decision Date | 21 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 42648,42648,3 |
| Citation | 116 Ga.App. 58,156 S.E.2d 474 |
| Parties | Mary Margaret STUBBS v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James O. Goggins, Atalanta, for appellant.
Gambrell, Harlan, Russell & Moye, Edward W. Killorin, George W. Hart, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
To the plaintiff's action for loss of consortium, alleged to have resulted from a collision caused by the negligent operation of the defendant Greyhound Lines' bus by the defendant Johnson the defendants pleaded accident and upon the trial offered evidence that the collision was caused by ice formations on the street which the defendants could not reasonably have anticipated. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
1. The third through the sixth enumerations of error are either abandoned by the appellant or concern the court's instructions as to which no objection was made prior to verdict. They accordingly do not show cause for reversal. Nathan v. Duncan, 113 Ga.App. 630(6), 149 S.E.2d 383; Barlow v. Rushin, 114 Ga.App. 304, 151 S.E.2d 199; Southwire Company v. Franklin Aluminum Company, 114 Ga.App. 337(2), 151 S.E.2d 493; Atkins v. Britt, 114 Ga.App. 258, 150 S.E. 841.
2. Any error in excluding evidence which, if relevant, was relevant only with respect to the measure of damages would not be ground for reversal, in the absence of some other error requiring a reversal of the case, for the reason that the jury having rejected the plaintiff's contention as to liability generally, obviously did not consider the question of damages. Andrew v. Carithers, 124 Ga. 515, 52 S.E. 653; McBride v. Georgia Railway & Electric Company, 125 Ga. 515, 54 S.E. 674; Segars v. City of Cornelia, 60 Ga.App. 457, 4 S.E.2d 60; Parsons v. Foshee, 80 Ga.App. 127, 55 S.E.2d 386; Parsons v. Grant, 95 Ga.App. 431, 98 S.E.2d 219; King v. Harmon, 97 Ga.App. 456, 103 S.E.2d 428. The first ground of enumerated error complaining of the refusal of the court to admit in evidence the Carlisle Mortality Table, and the second ground, relating to a portion of the charge respecting an item of damages, under the circumstances of the case, if error, will not require a reversal.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Claxton Poultry Co., Inc. v. City of Claxton
...damages which is not a ground for reversal where the jury has rejected the plaintiffs' contentions of liability. Stubbs v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 116 Ga.App. 58, 156 S.E.2d 474; Maloy v. Dixon, 127 Ga.App. 151, 193 S.E.2d 19, cited in footnote 2, pp. 156, 157, 193 S.E.2d 19. The verdict her......
-
Hieber v. Watt
...Parsons v. Grant, 95 Ga. App. 431, 435 (98 SE2d 219); Paulk v. Thomas, 115 Ga. App. 436, 442 (154 SE2d 872); Stubbs v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 116 Ga. App. 58 (2) (156 SE2d 474). Judgment affirmed. Bell, P. J., Jordan, P. J., Hall, Pannell, Deen, Quillian and Whitman, JJ., concur. Felton, C.......
-
Parham v. Roach
... ... Lester v. S. J. Alexander, Inc., 127 Ga.App. 470, 193 S.E.2d 860 ... 731] harmless and affords no ground for reversal. Stubbs v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 116 Ga ... App. 58(2), 156 ... ...
-
Baxter v. Bryan
...automobile was harmless because the jury rejected the defendants' contention as to liability generally. Stubbs v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 116 Ga.App. 58(2), 156 S.E.2d 474. Judgment BELL, C.J., and WHITMAN, J., concur. ...