Hunt v. McClarty

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hunt v. McClarty

143 S.E.2d 62, 111 Ga. App. 688, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 1067

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 13, 1965

Docket41285, 41291

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 143 S.E.2d 62 (Hunt v. McClarty) 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

Hunt v. McClarty, 143 S.E.2d 62, 111 Ga. App. 688, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 1067 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

“In Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. v. Tice, 124 Ga. 459, 461 (52 SE 916, 4 AC 200), it was held: ‘When a married woman is injured by the wrongful conduct of another, two different causes of action may arise: the one in her favor for her own pain and suffering, and the other in favor of the husband for the loss of his wife’s services and for expenses incurred as a consequence of the injuries to her. These causes of action are separate and distinct, and in favor of different parties.’ ” Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 214 Ga. 232, 235 (104 SE2d 208). Therefore, “The plaintiff could not recover for expenses incurred by her in consequence of the injury, unless actually paid by her ... or that she personally undertook to pay these expenses or in any manner bound herself to do so.” Lewis v. City of Atlanta, 77 Ga. 756 (4 ASR 108).

The plaintiff’s petition alleged that she “incurred” such expenses and she testified that she contracted personally to pay the same out of her separate earnings, Code Ann. § 53-512. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting a new trial on the 3 special grounds which had excluded from the jury’s consideration an item of damages which the juiy was authorized to consider.

The defendant in error expressly abandoned the cross bill of exceptions in the event the judgment on the main bill of exceptions was affirmed. Accordingly, the cross bill of exceptions is dismissed.

Judgment affirmed on main bill; cross bill dismissed.

Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.

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

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

“In Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. v. Tice, 124 Ga. 459, 461 (52 SE 916, 4 AC 200), it was held: ‘When a married woman is injured by the wrongful conduct of another, two different causes of action may arise: the one in her favor for her own pain and suffering, and the other in favor of the husband for the loss of his wife’s services and for expenses incurred as a consequence of the injuries to her. These causes of action are separate and distinct, and in favor of different parties.’ ” Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 214 Ga. 232, 235 (104 SE2d 208). Therefore, “The plaintiff could not recover for expenses incurred by her in consequence of the injury, unless actually paid by her ... or that she personally undertook to pay these expenses or in any manner bound herself to do so.” Lewis v. City of Atlanta, 77 Ga. 756 (4 ASR 108).

The plaintiff’s petition alleged that she “incurred” such expenses and she testified that she contracted personally to pay the same out of her separate earnings, Code Ann. § 53-512. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting a new trial on the 3 special grounds which had excluded from the jury’s consideration an item of damages which the juiy was authorized to consider.

The defendant in error expressly abandoned the cross bill of exceptions in the event the judgment on the main bill of exceptions was affirmed. Accordingly, the cross bill of exceptions is dismissed.

Judgment affirmed on main bill; cross bill dismissed.

Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E.2d 62, 111 Ga. App. 688, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 1067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-mcclarty-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack