Ward v. Handley, 49546
| Decision Date | 15 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 49546,No. 3,49546,3 |
| Citation | 132 Ga.App. 412,208 S.E.2d 189 |
| Parties | Hugh WARD v. Fred HANDLEY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. When expert testimony as to value of land is excluded, but subsequently the
same testimony as to value by the same witness is admitted, the error of exclusion, if any, is made harmless.
2. Any error in excluding evidence as to damages affords no basis for reversal where the jury finds for defendant on the issue of liability.
Johnson & Beckham, E. Carl Prince, Jr., Carrollton, for appellant.
Hollis B. Johnson, Carrollton, for appellee.
1. The sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in excluding the expert opinion testimony of appellant's witness as to value on the date of trespass. Exclusion was on the basis that the witness had not seen the property immediately prior to the trespass. There is no rule precluding such testimony merely because the expert witness did not review the property immediately prior to the date as of which he sets a value, and exclusion of such testimony was erroneous. Howard v. State Highway Dept., 117 Ga.App. 280, 282, 160 S.E.2d 204; State Highway Dept. v. Peters, 121 Ga.App. 167, 169, 173 S.E.2d 253; Oak Ridge Village, Inc. v. LaSiesta Mobile Home Park, Inc., 130 Ga.App. 539, 203 S.E.2d 748.
Subsequent to the initial exclusion of such expert testimony, however, the same testimony as to value by the same witness was admitted and was before the jury. Thus the error of the previous exclusion was sufficiently remedied and made harmless. Paulk v. Thomas, 115 Ga.App. 436, 154 S.E.2d 872; Eiberger v. Martel Electronic Sales, Inc., 125 Ga.App. 253, 256, 187 S.E.2d 327.
2. Moreover, the issue of ownership was basic to the case sub judice, each party claiming title under deeds from a common grantor. Before appellant could recover damages for a trespass, it was incumbent upon him to establish the superior title and right of possession. The jury resolved this question in appellee's favor and found that he was not liable for trespass; and under repeated rulings of this court, any error in excluding evidence as to damages affords no basis for reversal where the jury finds for defendant on the issue of liability. Maloy v. Dixon, 127 Ga.App. 151, 156 (Footnote 2), 193 S.E.2d 19.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laughridge v. Moss
...error, if any, in the sustaining of the objection to the original question would be clearly harmless. See generally Ward v. Handley, 132 Ga.App. 412(1), 208 S.E.2d 189 (1974). 2. Appellant enumerates as error the trial court's refusal to suppress in its entirety a deposition which appellee ......
-
Lurlee, Inc. v. Pernoshal-39 Co., PERNOSHAL-39
...and lack of foundation for the expressed opinion. The trial court did not err in allowing the witness to testify. Ward v. Handley, 132 Ga.App. 412, 208 S.E.2d 189. 6. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in allowing the resident manager to testify concerning the defects in wor......
- Horton v. State
-
Tripcony v. Pickett, 49529
...however, the same testimony was elicited from the same witness without objection, and no reversible error appears. Ward v. Handley, 132 Ga.App. 412(1), 208 S.E.2d 189. 2. Enumeration of error 4 complains of the sustaining of an objection to testimony of witness Shackleford as follows: 'Q. J......