Thruway Service City, Inc. v. Townsend, 42980
| Decision Date | 27 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 42980,42980,3 |
| Citation | 116 Ga.App. 379,157 S.E.2d 564 |
| Parties | THRUWAY SERVICE CITY, INC. v. Dennie TOWNSEND |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Alvin N. Siegel, Bennet Alan Grude, Atlanta, for appellant.
Stark & Stark, Homer M. Stark, Lawrenceville, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Dennie Townsend brought this action in Gwinnett Superior Court against Thruway Service City, Incorporated, for damages allegedly caused by the negligent action of defendant's employee in filling the fuel tank of a diesel truck with gasoline. The defendant appeals from an adverse verdict and judgment, its motion for a new trial having been overruled. Held:
1. The first three enumerated errors are identical with the general grounds of a motion for new trial, and, not being insisted upon, are treated as abandoned.
2. The fourth enumerated error is directed to the admissibility of unidentified documentary evidence without proper foundation as to its authenticity. Counsel argues this asserted error in his brief in reference only to the plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2, an undated invoice on a Shell Oil Company form to 'Essofleet Thruway Service City, Inc.,' for 93 gallons of diesel fuel, two 6-volt batteries, and road service. Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 is the same type invoice, listing identical charges for two batteries and road service, and plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 is also the same type invoice, listing an identical charge for diesel fuel, less 2cents per gallon discount, and the charges on these forms are invoiced to 'D. Townson.' The plaintiff's driver identified all of these documents as receipts he obtained at a service station which correctly state the charges incurred when the engine of the truck became overheated and he stopped, some 50 miles away from the defendant's service station, at which time his helper discovered that the fuel tank had been filled with gasoline. The plaintiff testified that in a telephone conversation he instructed the operator at the Shell service station, otherwise unidentified, to prepare an invoice for the defendant. Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2, especially when considered with Exhibits No. 3 and 4, was properly admitted in evidence as the memorandum of a transaction made in the regular course of business. Code Ann. § 38-711.
3. The defendant asserts, in the fifth enumerated error, that evidence of telephone conversations was inadmissible hearsay. The evidence is identified in the brief as the testimony of the plaintiff concerning various conversations with representatives of the defendant. The record reveals testimony by the plaintiff of a number of telephone conversations with persons who identified themselves as representatives of the defendant, usually as the manager or assistant manager of the service station, some of whom made statements virtually admitting the defendant's liability during the course of discussions as to what the plaintiff should do to recoup his expenses and mitigate further losses. As the result of one of these telephone calls the plaintiff received information that the manager was out of town and would return that night. He then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kimble v. State
...with the conversation (Ayers v. John B. Daniel Co., 35 Ga.App. 511, 514, 133 S.E. 878 (1926); see also Thruway Service City v. Townsend, 116 Ga.App. 379, 157 S.E.2d 564 (1967)), or when the evidence showed that the witness called a telephone number listed under the defendant's name, talked ......
-
Jones v. Spindel
...§ 38-302; Joiner v. Joiner, 225 Ga. 699(3), 171 S.E.2d 297; Bowen v. State, 225 Ga. 423, 169 S.E.2d 322; Thruway Service City, Inc. v. Townsend, 116 Ga.App. 379(3), 157 S.E.2d 564; Sisk v. Carney, 121 Ga.App. 560, 562, 174 S.E.2d 5. Another evidentiary question is presented on this appeal. ......
-
Chicago Insurance Company v. Camors
...Compare Planters Cotton Oil Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 126 Ga. 621, 55 S.E. 495, 6 L.R.A.,N.S., 1180, and Thruway Service v. Townsend, 116 Ga.App. 379(3), 157 S.E.2d 564; and see 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, § 201. Fortunately, however, it makes no difference here since the liability of plai......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Reynolds
...of the conversation although the plaintiff could not identify by name the person with whom he was talking. Thruway Service City, Inc. v. Townsend, 116 Ga.App. 379(3), 157 S.E.2d 564. 6. The court refused to allow testimony of two witnesses offered in rebuttal by the defendant, on the ground......