Kirkland v. Wheeler

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kirkland v. Wheeler

66 S.E.2d 359, 84 Ga. App. 366, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 694

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 16, 1951

Docket33672

StatusPublished

This text of 66 S.E.2d 359 (Kirkland v. Wheeler) 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

Kirkland v. Wheeler, 66 S.E.2d 359, 84 Ga. App. 366, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 694 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

This is a companion case with Tommie Kirkland, v. Wheeler, ante, .which is an action by the wife against the defendant for personal injuries sustained as a result of a certain automobile accident, whereby the automobile which she was driving was struck by the .automobile being operated by the defendant, and the present case is brought by the husband, Frank Wheeler, to recover for the damage to his automobile, for medical expenses incurred as a result of his wife’s injuries, and for the loss of her services and consortium. The cases were tried together and the record is the same. The special grounds of the motion for new trial are identical with the special grounds in the motion made in this case, with the exception of ground No. 33, in which the defendant assigns error on this charge: “If you find that Frank Wheeler is entitled to recover damages for the loss of his wife’s services, then I charge you that in arriving at the amount of compensation to be awarded to a husband for the loss of his wife’s services, she is not to be treated as an ordinary servant or a mere hireling. He is entitled to the companionship of and consortium of his wife.” This charge was not an erroneous statement of the law, but was pertinent and applicable under the pleadings and there was evidence to the effect that the husband had been damaged in the loss of the services of his wife. This ground of the motion is without merit, and shows no error under the whole record of this case.

The other special grounds and the general grounds of the motion for new trial are controlled by the rulings made in Kirkland v. Wheeler, supra, and the judgment overruling the motion for new trial, as amended, as to the husband was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, P.J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

This is a companion case with Tommie Kirkland, v. Wheeler, ante, .which is an action by the wife against the defendant for personal injuries sustained as a result of a certain automobile accident, whereby the automobile which she was driving was struck by the .automobile being operated by the defendant, and the present case is brought by the husband, Frank Wheeler, to recover for the damage to his automobile, for medical expenses incurred as a result of his wife’s injuries, and for the loss of her services and consortium. The cases were tried together and the record is the same. The special grounds of the motion for new trial are identical with the special grounds in the motion made in this case, with the exception of ground No. 33, in which the defendant assigns error on this charge: “If you find that Frank Wheeler is entitled to recover damages for the loss of his wife’s services, then I charge you that in arriving at the amount of compensation to be awarded to a husband for the loss of his wife’s services, she is not to be treated as an ordinary servant or a mere hireling. He is entitled to the companionship of and consortium of his wife.” This charge was not an erroneous statement of the law, but was pertinent and applicable under the pleadings and there was evidence to the effect that the husband had been damaged in the loss of the services of his wife. This ground of the motion is without merit, and shows no error under the whole record of this case.

The other special grounds and the general grounds of the motion for new trial are controlled by the rulings made in Kirkland v. Wheeler, supra, and the judgment overruling the motion for new trial, as amended, as to the husband was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, P.J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.E.2d 359, 84 Ga. App. 366, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirkland-v-wheeler-gactapp-1951.