Womack v. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 48670,No. 3,48670,3
• Citation: 131 Ga.App. 63,205 S.E.2d 72
• Parties: Michael O. WOMACK v. ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, INC., et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 72

205 S.E.2d 72

131 Ga.App. 63

Michael O. WOMACK v. ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, INC., et al.

No. 48670.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

Jan. 23, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1974.

Adams, Adams, Brennan & Gardner, Edward T. Brennan, Richard A. Rominger, Savannah, for appellant.

Falligant, Doremus, Karsman, Kent & Toporek, A. Martin Kent, Bouhan, Williams & Levy, Frank W. Seiler, Savannah, for appellees.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

PANNELL, Judge.

Plaintiff below brought suit because of injuries allegedly received as result of a fall in a bathtub in his hospital room occasioned by a defective grab bar. Plaintiff had been admitted for treatment of a suspected ruptured disc sustained two months earlier when he slipped and fell at his place of employment. Three days after admission, the suspicion was confirmed when two ruptured discs were surgically corrected.

Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of both defendants. Plaintiff then filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for new trial. Following hearing, the motions were denied. Held:

1. Plaintiff enumerates initially that the order and judgment entered below were contrary to law and to the evidence, since defendants admitted that the grab bars were negligently installed; defendant, NorAir Construction Company admitted that it had notice of the defective installation prior to the incident; and, that it was undisputed that appellant fell in the tub when the grab bar pulled out of the wall. There is evidence that defendant NorAir did not comply with the architect's specifications in installing the fixtures, but whether this failure constituted negligence, which was the proximate cause of the injury complained of, was a question of fact for the jury to determine. Also, there is evidence of record that the plaintiff's fall may not have aggravated his pre-existing condition. This court has no authority to entertain an assignment of error that the verdict is contrary to the evidence if there is any evidence at all to support the verdict. Bell Bros. v. Aiken, 1 Ga.App. 36(2), 57 S.E. 1001. While the evidence supporting the verdict was slight, it cannot be held that the verdict was without evidence to support it. Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. Brock, 141 Ga. 840(2), 82 S.E. 225.

2. Plaintiff next complains that the order and judgment below denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was in error, since a verdict in favor of appellant was demanded by the evidence. We disagree. There is evidence to support the jury's verdict and it is the duty of an appellate court to construe that evidence most strongly in support of the verdict. Associated Mutuals v. Pope Lumber Co., 200 Ga. 487, 496, 37 S.E.2d 393. See also, Crews v. Crews, 219 Ga. 459, 134 S.E.2d 27; and City of Dublin v. Hobbs, 218 Ga. 108, 126 S.E.2d 655.

3. Plaintiff enumerates that the trial court erred in charging the jury as follows: 'I charge you that verdicts cannot be based on mere conjecture, speculation or suspicion. The proof must establish a connection between the acts charged and the injury alleged as its effect before the plaintiff can be permitted to recover. A possible cause cannot be accepted by a jury as the operating cause unless the evidence excludes all others or shows something in the way of a direct connection with the occurrence.' Taken out of context, the challenged instruction might, under the facts of this case, be subject to attack. However, this isolation of segments of the overall charge to the jury and the individual dissection of such parts is not grounds...