Mathis v. Copeland

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mathis v. Copeland

228 S.E.2d 23, 139 Ga. App. 68, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1683

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1976

Docket52265

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 228 S.E.2d 23 (Mathis v. Copeland) 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

Mathis v. Copeland, 228 S.E.2d 23, 139 Ga. App. 68, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1683 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

Mathis was injured when the automobile in which he was a passenger collided with the one driven by Copeland. He sued and received a verdict of $600 for his injuries. The only issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine any damages as a result of loss of earnings.

The trial judge, who allowed unlimited direct examination of Mathis in an attempt to establish his earning capacity as a then unemployed but sometimes odd job laborer, correctly decided that his testimony gave *69 no evidence from which the jury could ascertain, except by conjecture and speculation, a reasonable basis to determine lost wages. "Where a party sues for specific damages he has the burden of showing the amount of loss claimed in such a way that the jury may calculate the amount of loss from the data furnished and will not be placed in a position where an allowance of the loss is based on guesswork. [Cit.]” Studebaker Corp. v. Nail, 82 Ga. App. 779, 785 (62 SE2d 198).

Submitted May 24, 1976 Decided June 15, 1976. Mullís, Reynolds, Marshall & Horne, W. Carl Reynolds, Gerald S. Mullís, for appellant. Harris, Watkins, Taylor & Davis, David B. Higdon, for appellee.

The trial judge properly instructed the jury not to consider any loss in earnings should they find that Mathis was entitled to recover.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Webb, Judge.

Mathis was injured when the automobile in which he was a passenger collided with the one driven by Copeland. He sued and received a verdict of $600 for his injuries. The only issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine any damages as a result of loss of earnings.

The trial judge, who allowed unlimited direct examination of Mathis in an attempt to establish his earning capacity as a then unemployed but sometimes odd job laborer, correctly decided that his testimony gave *69 no evidence from which the jury could ascertain, except by conjecture and speculation, a reasonable basis to determine lost wages. "Where a party sues for specific damages he has the burden of showing the amount of loss claimed in such a way that the jury may calculate the amount of loss from the data furnished and will not be placed in a position where an allowance of the loss is based on guesswork. [Cit.]” Studebaker Corp. v. Nail, 82 Ga. App. 779, 785 (62 SE2d 198).

Submitted May 24, 1976 Decided June 15, 1976. Mullís, Reynolds, Marshall & Horne, W. Carl Reynolds, Gerald S. Mullís, for appellant. Harris, Watkins, Taylor & Davis, David B. Higdon, for appellee.

The trial judge properly instructed the jury not to consider any loss in earnings should they find that Mathis was entitled to recover.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.E.2d 23, 139 Ga. App. 68, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathis-v-copeland-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack