Telligman v. Monumental Properties, Inc., 69321

Decision Date14 November 1984
Docket NumberNo. 69321,69321
Citation172 Ga.App. 783,323 S.E.2d 888
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Jerry B. Hatcher, Atlanta, for appellants.

William D. Temple, William A. Dinges, Decatur, for appellee.

BANKE, Presiding Judge.

The appellants, Marion Telligman and her husband, Kenneth, sued to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by Mrs. Telligman when she slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk located on premises owned by the appellee, Monumental Properties, Inc. In a previous appearance of the case before this court, we reversed a grant of summary judgment to the appellee. See Telligman v. Monumental Properties, 161 Ga.App. 13, 288 S.E.2d 846 (1982). The present appeal follows the entry of a jury verdict for the appellee. Held:

1. The appellants contend that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the doctrine of assumption of risk, particularly in view of this court's previous ruling that the "evidence demonstrates conclusively that appellant had no actual knowledge of the 'invisible' ice hazard." Telligman, supra at 16, 288 S.E.2d 846. However, that statement was based on the record existing in the case on motion for summary judgment. At trial, the appellant testified that she saw other patches of ice on the sidewalk, that she was aware that the temperature was "hovering right around freezing," and that, although she could not see the ice where she slipped, the area was "wet looking." This was sufficient to raise a jury question on the issue of assumption of risk. See generally Gay v. City of Rome, 157 Ga.App. 368(4), 277 S.E.2d 741 (1981).

2. The trial court did not err in refusing to allow appellants' counsel to ask the prospective jurors on voir dire whether they felt that a person who slips on ice on a public walkway should be entitled to recover against the owner of the property. "Voir dire should allow both parties an opportunity to ascertain the ability of the prospective jurors to decide the case on its merits, with objectivity and freedom from bias and prior inclination. Whitlock v. State, 230 Ga. 700, 198 S.E.2d 865 (1973). However, no question should require a response from a juror which might amount to a prejudgment of the case. Jones v. Parrott, 111 Ga.App. 750(2), 143 S.E.2d 393 (1965). Since the distinction between questions which ask jurors how they would decide issues of a case if and when such issues are presented and questions which merely inquire whether jurors can start the case without bias or prior inclination is not always crystal clear, the 'control of the voir dire examination is vested in the sound legal discretion of the trial judge and will not be interfered with by this court unless the record clearly shows an abuse of that discretion.' Lamb v. State, 241 Ga. 10, 12 243 S.E.2d 59 (1978)." Waters v. State, 248 Ga. 355, 363, 283 S.E.2d 238 (1981). See also Pinion v. State, 225 Ga. 36(4), 165 S.E.2d 708 (1969); Bransome v. Barton, 154 Ga.App. 799(1), 270 S.E.2d 55 (1980); OCGA §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • March 10, 2006
    ...459, 462 (5th Cir.1968); Sherman v. William M. Ryan & Sons, 126 Conn. 574, 13 A.2d 134, 135-36 (1940); Telligman v. Monumental Props., Inc., 172 Ga.App. 783, 323 S.E.2d 888, 889 (1984); Woolen v. Wire, 110 Ind. 251, 11 N.E. 236, 237 (1887); Grover v. Boise Cascade Corp., 860 A.2d 851, 858 (......
  • Henderson v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 11, 1998 cable before she fell does not mean the charge on assumption of risk was given in error. In Telligman v. Monumental Properties, 172 Ga.App. 783(1), 323 S.E.2d 888 (1984), we found no error in the trial court's charging the jury on assumption of risk where the plaintiff did not see ......
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 2000
    ...question... on appeal. See, e.g., Sikes v. Folsom Constr. Co., 151 Ga.App. 630(2), 260 S.E.2d 755 (1979)." Telligman v. Monumental Properties, 172 Ga.App. 783, 784(3), 323 S.E.2d 888. Moreover, assuming arguendo that this testimony would otherwise have been objectionable, Hendon's failure t......
  • Tice v. Cole, A00A1021.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 21, 2000
    ...discretion in allowing the testimony, and there was no reversible error. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Shaw v. Ruiz;2 Telligman v. Monumental Properties.3 (b) Tice further contends that the trial court erred by admitting the documents into evidence because the documents were not prop......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT