Bledsoe v. Potts

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bledsoe v. Potts

148 S.E. 291, 39 Ga. App. 689, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 517

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1929

Docket19609

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 148 S.E. 291 (Bledsoe v. Potts) 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

Bledsoe v. Potts, 148 S.E. 291, 39 Ga. App. 689, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 517 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

This was an action to recover damages for a personal injury. The plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to recover for pain and suffering, for diminished earning capacity, and for hospital and doctor’s bills, and upon the trial he introduced evidence in support of the allegations. It was error, therefore, for the court to instruct the jury, in effect, that the plaintiff was suing for general damages only, and to fail to give them any rule for ascertaining the amount to be fixed for hospital and doctor’s bills (counsel for the plaintiff in open court announced, in effect, that the item for diminished earning capacity had been abandoned), Dnder the charge of the court, the jurors, being mere laymen in the science of law, may have concluded that hospital and doctor’s bills were items of general damages and that the amount that the plaintiff was entitled to recover therefor was left to their enlightened consciences. Southern Ry. Co. v. O’Bryan, 112 Ga. 127 (37 S. E. 161); Macon Ry. &c. Co. v. Vining, 120 Ga. 511 (3), 515 (48 S. E. 232); Wadley v. Dooly, 138 Ga. 275 (7) (75 S. E. 153).

Dnder the facts of the instant case, the errors in the charge require another hearing of the case, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Dulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

This was an action to recover damages for a personal injury. The plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to recover for pain and suffering, for diminished earning capacity, and for hospital and doctor’s bills, and upon the trial he introduced evidence in support of the allegations. It was error, therefore, for the court to instruct the jury, in effect, that the plaintiff was suing for general damages only, and to fail to give them any rule for ascertaining the amount to be fixed for hospital and doctor’s bills (counsel for the plaintiff in open court announced, in effect, that the item for diminished earning capacity had been abandoned), Dnder the charge of the court, the jurors, being mere laymen in the science of law, may have concluded that hospital and doctor’s bills were items of general damages and that the amount that the plaintiff was entitled to recover therefor was left to their enlightened consciences. Southern Ry. Co. v. O’Bryan, 112 Ga. 127 (37 S. E. 161); Macon Ry. &c. Co. v. Vining, 120 Ga. 511 (3), 515 (48 S. E. 232); Wadley v. Dooly, 138 Ga. 275 (7) (75 S. E. 153).

Dnder the facts of the instant case, the errors in the charge require another hearing of the case, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Dulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 291, 39 Ga. App. 689, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bledsoe-v-potts-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack