Hendrix v. Hoover Motor Express

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hendrix v. Hoover Motor Express

144 S.E.2d 466, 112 Ga. App. 178, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 634

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 8, 1965

Docket41347

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E.2d 466 (Hendrix v. Hoover Motor Express) 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

Hendrix v. Hoover Motor Express, 144 S.E.2d 466, 112 Ga. App. 178, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 634 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, Judge.

This was a suit by the plaintiff to recover damages for the alleged loss of consortium of her husband who was injured in a collision between his automobile and the defendant’s tractor-trailer. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants and the plaintiff filed a motion for new trial which was denied. The exception is to that judgment. Held:

1. Special grounds 10 and 12 which complain of the admission of evidence over objection are too incomplete to require consideration since the evidence admitted after objection is neither set forth in these grounds nor referred to in the record. Bradley v. Sherwin, 110 Ga. App. 632 (1) (139 SE2d 512); White v. Sellers, 107 Ga. App. 402 (1) (130 SE2d 266); Woodward v. Fuller, 145 Ga. 252 (8) (88 SE 974).

2. The evidence adduced on the trial authorized a finding that the defendant driver was faced with an emergency, not resulting from any negligence on his part, when an air line suddenly broke, causing a safety device to lock the brakes [179]*179of his tractor and trailer. Since there was no evidence of negligent maintenance of the air line, the trial court did not err in submitting the doctrine of sudden emergency in charge to the jury; and the charge as given was neither incorrect as an abstract principle of law nor based upon an erroneous assumption of fact as contended in special ground 17.

Argued June 7, 1965 Decided September 8, 1965. Fincher & Goggins, James 0. Goggins, for plaintiff in error. Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, A. Paul Cadenhead, Thomas A. Bice, contra.

3. The general grounds and the remaining special grounds have been abandoned.

■ Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and: Deen, J., concur.

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

Jordan, Judge.

This was a suit by the plaintiff to recover damages for the alleged loss of consortium of her husband who was injured in a collision between his automobile and the defendant’s tractor-trailer. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants and the plaintiff filed a motion for new trial which was denied. The exception is to that judgment. Held:

1. Special grounds 10 and 12 which complain of the admission of evidence over objection are too incomplete to require consideration since the evidence admitted after objection is neither set forth in these grounds nor referred to in the record. Bradley v. Sherwin, 110 Ga. App. 632 (1) (139 SE2d 512); White v. Sellers, 107 Ga. App. 402 (1) (130 SE2d 266); Woodward v. Fuller, 145 Ga. 252 (8) (88 SE 974).

2. The evidence adduced on the trial authorized a finding that the defendant driver was faced with an emergency, not resulting from any negligence on his part, when an air line suddenly broke, causing a safety device to lock the brakes [179]*179of his tractor and trailer. Since there was no evidence of negligent maintenance of the air line, the trial court did not err in submitting the doctrine of sudden emergency in charge to the jury; and the charge as given was neither incorrect as an abstract principle of law nor based upon an erroneous assumption of fact as contended in special ground 17.

Argued June 7, 1965 Decided September 8, 1965. Fincher & Goggins, James 0. Goggins, for plaintiff in error. Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, A. Paul Cadenhead, Thomas A. Bice, contra.

3. The general grounds and the remaining special grounds have been abandoned.

■ Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and: Deen, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E.2d 466, 112 Ga. App. 178, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendrix-v-hoover-motor-express-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack