Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Nowell

226 S.E.2d 286, 138 Ga. App. 443, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2186
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 22, 1976
Docket52056
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 S.E.2d 286 (Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Nowell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Nowell, 226 S.E.2d 286, 138 Ga. App. 443, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2186 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

Mrs. Nowell sued to recover for injuries alleged to have been caused as a result of the defendant’s negligent operation of a public bus. The jury returned a verdict in her favor for $13,500.

The transit system contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant its motion for a partial directed verdict as to medical expenses and in permitting the jury to consider the medical expenses as a part of damages. It complains that in the Grady Hospital bill introduced by Mrs. Nowell, it was not shown what treatments were expenses "incurred in connection with the treatment of the injury, disease or disability involved in the subject of litigation at the trial.” Jordan v. Hagewood, 133 Ga. App. 958 (213 SE2d 85).

We do not agree. While Mrs. Nowell had suffered from high blood pressure prior to her injuries she had never received treatment or medication therefor at Grady Hospital. There is no reason to believe that the [444]*444electrocardiogram she received before surgery was performed for any purpose other than as a routine precautionary procedure prior to operating on an elderly person. There having been no irrelevant expenses shown for hospital treatment at Grady, she had no duty to segregate them. Code Ann. § 38-706.1; cf. Jordan v. Hagewood, 33 Ga. App. 958, 959 (2), supra. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Argued April 13, 1976 Decided April 22, 1976. Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, G. Lee Garrett, Jr., for appellant. Goodman & Hudnall, H. Gilman Hudnall, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harper v. Samples
298 S.E.2d 29 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 S.E.2d 286, 138 Ga. App. 443, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlanta-transit-system-inc-v-nowell-gactapp-1976.