Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Barnette

153 S.E.2d 656, 115 Ga. App. 17, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 985
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 11, 1967
Docket42484
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 153 S.E.2d 656 (Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Barnette) 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
Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Barnette, 153 S.E.2d 656, 115 Ga. App. 17, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 985 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

The defendant appeals from a judgment for the plaintiff in a negligence action arising out of a collision by the defendant’s bus with the rear of the plaintiff’s automobile which was stopped at a red light. Held:

1. Enumerations of error 1, 2, 3 and 4 are without merit. No party can complain of the giving or the failure to give an instruction to the jury, unless he objects thereto before the jury returns its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Ga. L. 1965, p. 18, as amended, Ga. L. 1966, p. 493.

Under Sec. 17 (c) of the Appellate Practice Act (Code Ann. § 70-207 (c)) nothing is presented for consideration on appeal unless it appears that the error contended is “blatantly apparent and prejudicial” (Hollywood Baptist Church v. State Highway Dept., 114 Ga. App. 98, 99 (3) (150 SE2d 271)), and that a “gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” Nathan v. Duncan, 113 Ga. App. 630, 638 (6b) (149 SE2d 383). The enumerations of error here do not meet that test.

2. A pre-trial order, limiting the issues for trial, controls the subsequent course of the action unless modified at the trial. Code Ann. § 81-1014. Dumas v. Beasley, 218 Ga. 349 (128 SE2d 59). The pre-trial order entered in this case specified *18 only two issues neither of which was concerned with venue. No request was made to modify this order at any time prior to or during the trial; therefore, the defendant is bound by its provisions. Enumeration of error 5, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove venue, is without merit.

Eberhardt, J., concurs. Felton, C. J., concurs in the judgment. Argued January 3, 1967 Decided January 11, 1967. Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Dent Aeree, for appellant. Wallace, Wallace & Driebe, Albert B. Wallace, Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler, Martin & Lowe, H. A. Stephens, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Stoddard v. Board of Tax Assessors
295 S.E.2d 170 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
293 S.E.2d 372 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Fowler v. Gorrell
251 S.E.2d 819 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Williams v. Kennedy
240 S.E.2d 51 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Allen v. Jentzen
234 S.E.2d 136 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Sturdivant v. Polk
230 S.E.2d 115 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Sullens v. Sullens
224 S.E.2d 921 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1976)
Bruce v. Calhoun First National Bank
216 S.E.2d 622 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Cooper v. Rosser
207 S.E.2d 513 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Moore v. Green
199 S.E.2d 317 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Royal Frozen Foods Co. v. Garrett
167 S.E.2d 400 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Skinner v. Medlock
166 S.E.2d 373 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Elmore v. State
159 S.E.2d 744 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Holcomb v. Kirby
160 S.E.2d 250 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Foskey v. State
157 S.E.2d 314 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
City of Douglas v. Rigdon
157 S.E.2d 66 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Plastics Development Corp. v. Flexible Products Co.
155 S.E.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
153 S.E.2d 656, 115 Ga. App. 17, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-transit-system-inc-v-barnette-gactapp-1967.