Smith v. Burtts

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. Burtts

158 S.E.2d 702, 116 Ga. App. 649, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 915

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1967

Docket43132

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 S.E.2d 702 (Smith v. Burtts) 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

Smith v. Burtts, 158 S.E.2d 702, 116 Ga. App. 649, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 915 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

The defendant appeals from a verdict and; judgment for the plaintiff and the overruling of his motion for new trial in this automobile negligence action.

,Argued October 3, 1967 Decided November 14, 1967. Herschel H. Hutchins, for appellant. James M. McDaniel, for appellee.

1'.' The trial court erred in charging the law relating to damages for loss of earnings and earning'capacity. The defendant made objection to this charge at the trial. The evidence that 'the plaintiff was employed as a lift operator before his injury and that after the injury he returned to work picking up papers and cleaning , up the yard at a stated weekly wage, was insufficient to .support the charges objected to, even though the evidence showed the plaintiff was permanently injured. Hunt v. Williams, 104 Ga. App. 442, 446 et seq. (122 SE2d 149).

2. The court’s charge on the subject of the alleged negligence '!'off the plaintiff contributing to his injury could not have : harmed the defendant. Furthermore, since the defendant did ■■ not object to it at. the trial, it is not a good ground for .. enumeration of error in this court. Ga. L. 1965, p. 18, as amended Ga. L. 1966, p. 493.

Judgment xeversed.

Felton, C. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

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

Hall, Judge.

The defendant appeals from a verdict and; judgment for the plaintiff and the overruling of his motion for new trial in this automobile negligence action.

,Argued October 3, 1967 Decided November 14, 1967. Herschel H. Hutchins, for appellant. James M. McDaniel, for appellee.

1'.' The trial court erred in charging the law relating to damages for loss of earnings and earning'capacity. The defendant made objection to this charge at the trial. The evidence that 'the plaintiff was employed as a lift operator before his injury and that after the injury he returned to work picking up papers and cleaning , up the yard at a stated weekly wage, was insufficient to .support the charges objected to, even though the evidence showed the plaintiff was permanently injured. Hunt v. Williams, 104 Ga. App. 442, 446 et seq. (122 SE2d 149).

2. The court’s charge on the subject of the alleged negligence '!'off the plaintiff contributing to his injury could not have : harmed the defendant. Furthermore, since the defendant did ■■ not object to it at. the trial, it is not a good ground for .. enumeration of error in this court. Ga. L. 1965, p. 18, as amended Ga. L. 1966, p. 493.

Judgment xeversed.

Felton, C. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E.2d 702, 116 Ga. App. 649, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-burtts-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack