Marts v. Cauley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Marts v. Cauley

163 S.E.2d 751, 118 Ga. App. 343, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 934

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1968

Docket43734

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 163 S.E.2d 751 (Marts v. Cauley) 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

Marts v. Cauley, 163 S.E.2d 751, 118 Ga. App. 343, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 934 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. Plaintiff-appellant brought this suit based on negligence to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when the automobile she was driving was struck by an automobile driven by defendant. The evidence on the trial authorized general damages only, not including loss of earning capacity. In the instructions to the jury the trial court charged fully the applicable measure of damages, authorizing the jury to award damages for pain and suffering, including past and future pain and suffering, physical and mental pain and suffering, and pain and suffering caused by plaintiff’s diminished capacity to work and labor. An instruction stating, “The only item you are to consider in this case is the pain and suffering of this plaintiff,” did not have the effect of restricting the jury from considering any item or element of damages for which plaintiff was entitled to recover. See Atkinson v. Taylor, 13 Ga. App. 100 (3) (78 SE 830); Lassiter v. Poss, 85 Ga. App. 785, 791 (70 SE2d 411); Atlanta Veteran’s Transportation v. Cagle, 106 Ga. App. 551, 554 (127 SE2d 702). Plaintiff’s contention that it had that effect is without merit.

2. Although a larger verdict in favor of the plaintiff would have been authorized by the evidence, the amount awarded was not so inadequate as to raise the inference of gross mistake or undue bias.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur. L. B. Kent, for appellant. Foley, Chappell, Hollis & Schloth, William J. Schloth, for appellee.

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

Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. Plaintiff-appellant brought this suit based on negligence to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when the automobile she was driving was struck by an automobile driven by defendant. The evidence on the trial authorized general damages only, not including loss of earning capacity. In the instructions to the jury the trial court charged fully the applicable measure of damages, authorizing the jury to award damages for pain and suffering, including past and future pain and suffering, physical and mental pain and suffering, and pain and suffering caused by plaintiff’s diminished capacity to work and labor. An instruction stating, “The only item you are to consider in this case is the pain and suffering of this plaintiff,” did not have the effect of restricting the jury from considering any item or element of damages for which plaintiff was entitled to recover. See Atkinson v. Taylor, 13 Ga. App. 100 (3) (78 SE 830); Lassiter v. Poss, 85 Ga. App. 785, 791 (70 SE2d 411); Atlanta Veteran’s Transportation v. Cagle, 106 Ga. App. 551, 554 (127 SE2d 702). Plaintiff’s contention that it had that effect is without merit.

2. Although a larger verdict in favor of the plaintiff would have been authorized by the evidence, the amount awarded was not so inadequate as to raise the inference of gross mistake or undue bias.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur. L. B. Kent, for appellant. Foley, Chappell, Hollis & Schloth, William J. Schloth, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E.2d 751, 118 Ga. App. 343, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marts-v-cauley-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack