Yeomans v. Smith
| Decision Date | 09 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48675,No. 2,48675,2 |
| Citation | 203 S.E.2d 926,130 Ga.App. 574 |
| Parties | Marl S. YEOMANS v. Conner H. SMITH, Jr., et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Zorn & Royal, William A. Zorn, Jesup, for appellant.
Taylor, Bishop & Lee, A. Blenn Taylor, Jr., Brunswick, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant Yeomans appeals from entry against him of a judgment rendered on a jury verdict in a suit, arising out of an automobile collision at an intersection, combining a claim by a surviving husband and children for the wrongful death of their respective wife and mother and the individual personal injury action of the surviving husband.
1. Error is enumerated on the failure of the trial judge to enter a pretrial order pursuant to defendant's motion, when a pre-trial conference had been had pursuant to Code Ann. § 81A-116 (). Defendant urges the applicability of Malcolm v. Cotton, 128 Ga.App. 699, 701, 197 S.E.2d 760, which found such failure to be harmful error where defendant was defending against two separate actions arising out of one occurrence involving the admissibility of different evidence, where the issues had not been simplified and evidentiary disputes resolved prior to trial, and where defendant moved for a continuance pending the order and the motion was denied. In the present appeal two separate claims are involved, but the circumstances of Malcolm v. Cotton are not otherwise applicable. Our review of the record leads to the conclusion that no harmful error attended the court's failure to enter the order; defendant requested no continuance; and defendant specifies here no particular manner in which he was harmed by the failure. Though the language of the statute is mandatory and it is error for the court to fail to comply, on this record we must conclude that such error was harmless. Accord, Smith v. Davis, 121 Ga.App. 704, 706, 175 S.E.2d 28; State Highway Dept. v. Peters, 121 Ga.App. 167, 171, 173 S.E.2d 253.
2. The second enumeration of error is without merit for the reasons stated in Eachen v. Roney, 127 Ga.App. 719, 194 S.E.2d 589.
3. Finally, defendant enumerates as error the charge of the court concerning the right of way at controlled intersections. The charge was founded upon Code Ann. § 68-1652 (Ga.L.1953, Nov.Sess., pp. 556, 590). The objection urged at trial and considered here was that the charge was not adjusted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLendon Elec. Co. v. McDonough Const. Co.
...or a specific direction by the court, there was no harmful error in the court's failure to enter a pre-trial order. Yeomans v. Smith, 130 Ga.App. 574(1), 203 S.E.2d 926; Smith v. Davis, 121 Ga.App. 704, 175 S.E.2d McDonough seeks to show prejudice by arguing that it was required to enter nu......
-
Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Daniel
...prejudice (harm) must be shown. 2 See Dawkins v. Thomas Hair etc., Corp., 145 Ga. App. 568, 244 S.E.2d 88 (1978); Yeomans v. Smith, 130 Ga.App. 574, 203 S.E.2d 926 (1974); Smith v. Davis, 121 Ga.App. 704, 175 S.E.2d 28 (1970). All the purposes of an objection have already been fulfilled by ......
-
Kilgore v. State
...prejudice (harm) must be shown. See Dawkins v. Thomas Hair etc. Corp., 145 Ga.App. 568, 244 S.E.2d 88 (1978); Yeomans v. Smith, 130 Ga.App. 574, 203 S.E.2d 926 (1974); Smith v. Davis, 121 Ga.App. 704, 175 S.E.2d 28 (1970). All the purposes of an objection have already been fulfilled by the ......
-
Dawkins v. Thomas Hair & Scalp Corp., 55313
...1. The failure to enter a pre-trial conference order was not error absent a showing of harmful error to the appellant. Yeomans v. Smith, 130 Ga.App. 574, 203 S.E.2d 926. None appears 2. Appellant failed to object to the charge given by the trial court; therefore, the appellant is precluded ......