Rackard v. Merritt

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rackard v. Merritt

152 S.E.2d 701, 114 Ga. App. 743, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 907

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 5, 1966

Docket42404

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 S.E.2d 701 (Rackard v. Merritt) 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

Rackard v. Merritt, 152 S.E.2d 701, 114 Ga. App. 743, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 907 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, Judge.

Sallie Merritt brought this action against Jesse Rackard in Fulton Superior Court to recover damages for personal injuries. The jury found for plaintiff for $12,500; judgment was entered accordingly, and defendant appeals. The sole issue asserted by appellant is whether the verdict is excessive, and appellee moves this court to assess damages for delay caused by the appeal. Held:

1. This court will not disturb the verdict of a jury for $12,500 [744]*744as being excessive as a matter of law where the evidence discloses that plaintiff, born in 1909, had been gainfully employed as a maid for 13 years and was earning $37.30 per week when she was injured on December 23, 1964, when defendant’s taxicab in which she was a passenger struck a parked vehicle, causing painful injuries to her forehead and left knee; that she wore a cast for about ten weeks and was unable to work, that on the date of trial there was a 50% impairment of the knee; that she will continue to have pain and discomfort from the knee; and that because of her injuries her earning ability as a maid has been and will continue to be impaired. See Southern Grocery Stores v. Kelley, 57 Ga. App. 37, 39 (194 SE 234); Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. Gilbert, 82 Ga. App. 244 (2) (60 SE2d 787); St. Paul Fire &c. Ins. Co. v. Dillingham, 112 Ga. App. 422 (145 SE2d 624), and numerous cases collected under Code § 70-202, catchword “Approval” and Code § 105-2015, catchword “Ex-cessiveness.”

Submitted November 9, 1966 Decided December 5, 1966. Atkins & Atkins, Ben S. Atkins, for appellant. Charlie Franco, James H. Weeks, for appellee.

2. Where, as here, the court is not fully satisfied that the cause was taken up for delay only, additional damages will not be awarded under the provisions of Code § 6-1801.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

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

Jordan, Judge.

Sallie Merritt brought this action against Jesse Rackard in Fulton Superior Court to recover damages for personal injuries. The jury found for plaintiff for $12,500; judgment was entered accordingly, and defendant appeals. The sole issue asserted by appellant is whether the verdict is excessive, and appellee moves this court to assess damages for delay caused by the appeal. Held:

1. This court will not disturb the verdict of a jury for $12,500 [744]*744as being excessive as a matter of law where the evidence discloses that plaintiff, born in 1909, had been gainfully employed as a maid for 13 years and was earning $37.30 per week when she was injured on December 23, 1964, when defendant’s taxicab in which she was a passenger struck a parked vehicle, causing painful injuries to her forehead and left knee; that she wore a cast for about ten weeks and was unable to work, that on the date of trial there was a 50% impairment of the knee; that she will continue to have pain and discomfort from the knee; and that because of her injuries her earning ability as a maid has been and will continue to be impaired. See Southern Grocery Stores v. Kelley, 57 Ga. App. 37, 39 (194 SE 234); Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. Gilbert, 82 Ga. App. 244 (2) (60 SE2d 787); St. Paul Fire &c. Ins. Co. v. Dillingham, 112 Ga. App. 422 (145 SE2d 624), and numerous cases collected under Code § 70-202, catchword “Approval” and Code § 105-2015, catchword “Ex-cessiveness.”

Submitted November 9, 1966 Decided December 5, 1966. Atkins & Atkins, Ben S. Atkins, for appellant. Charlie Franco, James H. Weeks, for appellee.

2. Where, as here, the court is not fully satisfied that the cause was taken up for delay only, additional damages will not be awarded under the provisions of Code § 6-1801.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.E.2d 701, 114 Ga. App. 743, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rackard-v-merritt-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack