Morris v. Dodson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morris v. Dodson

205 S.E.2d 60, 131 Ga. App. 40, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1317

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 20, 1974

Docket48997

StatusPublished

This text of 205 S.E.2d 60 (Morris v. Dodson) 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

Morris v. Dodson, 205 S.E.2d 60, 131 Ga. App. 40, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1317 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Stolz, Judge.

Defendants appeal from a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action arising out of a collision between the plaintiffs automobile and the defendants’ automobile.

In his charge to the jury, the trial judge erroneously gave a charge on the law of accident. This charge was not requested by either party and was not authorized by the [41]*41evidence. Upon objection by plaintiffs counsel, the judge withdrew the charge from the jury’s consideration and instructed the jury, "Both parties contend there was negligence on somebody’s part that caused this accident—or caused this collision, and you will fix that liability wherever it falls.” The foregoing quoted portion of the recharge was not objected to by the defendants. See Gurin v. Harris, 129 Ga. App. 561, 562 (200 SE2d 368) and cits.

Submitted January 17, 1974 Decided February 20, 1974. Starkey S. Flythe, for appellants. McGahee, Plunkett, Benning & Fletcher, Jack E. McGahee, for appellee.

Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in overruling the defendants’ motion for new trial as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

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

Stolz, Judge.

Defendants appeal from a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action arising out of a collision between the plaintiffs automobile and the defendants’ automobile.

In his charge to the jury, the trial judge erroneously gave a charge on the law of accident. This charge was not requested by either party and was not authorized by the [41]*41evidence. Upon objection by plaintiffs counsel, the judge withdrew the charge from the jury’s consideration and instructed the jury, "Both parties contend there was negligence on somebody’s part that caused this accident—or caused this collision, and you will fix that liability wherever it falls.” The foregoing quoted portion of the recharge was not objected to by the defendants. See Gurin v. Harris, 129 Ga. App. 561, 562 (200 SE2d 368) and cits.

Submitted January 17, 1974 Decided February 20, 1974. Starkey S. Flythe, for appellants. McGahee, Plunkett, Benning & Fletcher, Jack E. McGahee, for appellee.

Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in overruling the defendants’ motion for new trial as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 S.E.2d 60, 131 Ga. App. 40, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-dodson-gactapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack