Court Opinion

ID: 9625765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:50:48.174283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:14.955746
License: Public Domain

Eberhardt, Presiding Judge,
dissenting. I regret my inability to find agreement with my brothers of the majority. It may be my lack of experience or of understanding of the law as pronounced in cases from both the Supreme Court and this Court, but as I see it the applicable rules require a different result.
1. (a) It is the duty of the appellate court to construe the evidence most strongly in support of the verdict and against the appellant. Associated Mutuals v. Pope Lumber Co., 200 Ga. 487, 496 (37 SE2d 393).
(b) "This court can not review the findings of juries on issues of *417fact, unless, as a matter of law, a verdict has no evidence to support it.” Charles v. Brooker, 1 Ga. App. 219, 220 (58 SE 218). "This court . . . has no authority to entertain an assignment of error that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, if there is any evidence at all to support the verdict.” Bell Bros. v. Aiken, 1 Ga. App. 36 (2) (57 SE 1001). "While the evidence supporting a verdict. . . was slight, it cannot be held that the verdict was without evidence to support it.” Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Brock, 141 Ga. 840 (2) (82 SE 225). "Where the verdict can be supported under any proper view or theory of the evidence, it will not be set aside as being contrary thereto.” Sikes v. Bradley, 20 Ga. App. 470 (1) (93 SE 111). Although the evidence may preponderate against the verdict, this court may not substitute its view thereof for that of the jury and grant a new trial unless some error of law appears. Middleton v. Waters, 205 Ga. 847 (5) (55 SE2d 359).
As will be observed in discussion of some of the enumerations of error, these rules do not appear to have been followed.
2. I agree with Division 1 of the opinion, for as I see it, the conduct of Mrs. White in going home and to bed was not in issue, and exclusion of hearsay evidence relative thereto was proper. Brewer v. Henson, 96 Ga. App. 501, 502 (100 SE2d 661).
3. I find no error in the charge of Code Ann. § 68-1641 (a) relative to following too closely.
If the evidence is given the construction required to be given it on appeal, the jury was fully authorized to find that Mrs. White was following too closely behind the Hammond vehicle. According to her testimony she was thoroughly familiar with the road, the intersection, the hill or incline and that there was a "blind spot” ahead from which approaching vehicles would not be able to see the Hammond vehicle or hers as it approached the intersection. Mr. Hall, who was approaching, testified that he was not familar with the road, having driven on it but seldom, but that there was such a blind spot, and that when he came out of it he was "right at the intersection and the Hammond car and the White car were right in front of me, blocking the road.”
Since Mrs. White had traveled this road often and was very familiar with it, the jury was authorized to find that she should have anticipated that an approaching vehicle might find itself in such a position. She knew, too, of the intersection, and testified that Mr. Hammond had given her notice, both by the rear signal light and holding out his left hand, of his intention to make a left turn at it. Mr. Hammond testified that as he approached the *418intersection he was traveling at a speed of from 55 to 60 miles per hour, while Mrs. White testified that she was traveling at about 45 miles per hour. She also testified that she had been from one to two car lengths behind the Hammond car as it approached the intersection.
While Mrs. White says that she stopped before reaching the intersection and was not moving when the Hall car first struck the right rear of the Hammond car and then ricocheted into the left front of her car, and assuming this to have been true, the jury was authorized, though not required, to conclude that with the knowledge she had of the situation ahead and of the intention of Hammond to turn to the left, ordinary care on her part would have required that she slow down and stop a greater distance back, before reaching the intersection, and that if she had done so the Hammond vehicle would not have struck her car at all. Thus the jury was authorized to find that one or two car lengths was not a prudent distance behind the Hammond vehicle.
The statute provides that one must not "follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic and the condition of the highway.” The jury was authorized to find that Mrs. White had not taken into consideration the matters of Hammond’s speed, his approach to make a left turn at the intersection, and the fact that other vehicles might be approaching from the opposite direction and in the "blind spot” which she knew about, and that these matters required that she follow further behind than one or two car lengths. In any event the jury was authorized to consider these matters in determining whether Mrs. White had followed too closely. The charge was appropriate.
4. The majority finds error in the charge on the duty of the parties (including Mrs. White) to exercise ordinary care for their own safety, asserting that the charge was inappropriate to the facts.
I cannot so find it. If, as I conclude, Mrs. White may have been following too closely behind the Hammond vehicle, the jury was authorized to find that in so doing she was not in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety, and the charge was appropriate.
"[Q]ne is bound at all times to exercise ordinary care for his own safety, even before the negligence of another is or should be apparent, and this duty should not be confused with that other duty imposed by law upon all persons to avoid the negligence of another where the negligence of such other is existing, and is either *419apparent, or the circumstances are such that an ordinarily prudent person would have reason to apprehend its existence.” Southland Butane Gas Co. v. Blackwell, 211 Ga. 665, 667 (88 SE2d 6). See also Atlanta & C. A. L. R. Co. v. Leach, 91 Ga. 419 (2) (17 SE 619, 44 ASR 47). The evidence here must be construed against the appellant on appeal, just as a plaintiffs pleadings were construed against him on demurrer prior to the adoption of the Civil Practice Act. In that context see 670 New Street v. Smith, 107 Ga. App. 539, 542 (130 SE2d 773).
"[T]he plaintiff as a conscious human agent is bound to exercise ordinary care to avoid the consequences of the defendant’s negligence, by remaining away, going away, or getting out of the way of a probable or known danger.” Mansfield v. Richardson, 118 Ga. 250 (3) (45 SE 269).
The charge was appropriate.
5. It is obvious that if the jury was authorized to find either that Mrs. White was following the Hammond car too closely, or that she failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety, the principle of comparative negligence was a proper one to give in charge, conceding that the facts also authorized a finding that Hall was negligent in the operation of his car. Code § 105-603. Indeed, it would have been error to omit the charge. Western & A. R. Co. v. Jackson, 113 Ga. 355 (2) (38 SE 820).
6. As to Mr. White, the husband, who owned the car and who sought to recover for the damage to it, errors, if any, in the charge going to the matter of liability are harmless since there was a verdict in his favor. Maloy v. Dixon, 127 Ga. App. 151 (2b) (193 SE2d 19); Overnite Transp. Co. v. Hart, 126 Ga. App. 566 (2c) (191 SE2d 308).
As I construe the evidence, and as we are required to do on appeal, the verdicts returned by the jury cannot be deemed inconsistent. That would be true only if it could be said that the evidence demanded a verdict for each of the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. White. It must be conceded that the evidence may have authorized verdicts in their favor, but I can not find any basis for saying that such verdicts were demanded.
We agree with the majority that as to the right of Mr. White to recover for loss of consortium and for the medical expenses of his wife the action is derivative and dependent upon her right to recover. Bray v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 103 Ga. App. 783 (120 SE2d 628); Hightower v. Landrum, 109 Ga. App. 510, 514 (136 SE2d 425). However, since we conclude that the evidence here, when *420properly construed on appeal, authorized the jury to find that Mrs. White was not injured in the collision, and thus could not recover, it does not follow that Mr. White could not recover for the damage to his car, for the evidence authorized a finding that though both Mrs. White and Mr. Hammond were negligent, that of Mr. Hammond was the greater.
There is evidence in the record which would authorize a finding that Mrs. White’s complaint stemmed not from this event, but from prior back injuries which she had suffered in other accidents.
If that was the view the jury took of the matter it was perfectly proper to return a verdict for the defendants as to her.
On the other hand, the evidence that the car of Mr. White was damaged on this occasion was wholly uncontradicted, and he was entitled to a verdict in some amount for the damage, if the jury concluded, as they were authorized to do, that the negligence of Mr. Hammond exceeded in some degree that of Mrs. White.
This is true in spite of the fact that the two cases were tried on identically the same evidence, from the same witnesses at the same time and before the same jury.
In this status the question as to whether Nickle v. Armstrong Furniture Co., 107 Ga. App. 362, 363 (130 SE2d 249) was correct, or whether it should be overruled is not properly before us.
8. Since the evidence authorized the jury to find that Mrs. White was, to some extent, negligent in following too closely, or in failing to exercise ordinary care while operating the husband’s car, the jury was authorized to apply the comparative negligence rule and thus reduce the recovery, and it cannot be said that the verdict is, for any reason, inadequate. Furthermore, on questions of value the jury is not bound by the opinions of the witnesses, even though uncontradicted, but may place their own value upon the damage or to the before and after values from other data. Georgia Northern R. Co. v. Battle, 22 Ga. App. 665 (97 SE 94); Lott v. Banks, 21 Ga. App. 246, 250 (94 SE 322); Johnson v. Stevens, 19 Ga. App. 192 (91 SE 220); McCarthy v. Lazarus, 137 Ga. 282 (2) (73 SE 493); Martin v. Martin, 135 Ga. 162 (1) (68 SE 1095). And see Maloy v. Dixon, 127 Ga. App. 151, 162, supra, where we dealt with a very similar situation.
There was evidence here that Mr. White had incurred medical expenses of $267.50, some or all of which the jury may have concluded were related to her former injuries. She testified that she had, since shortly after the accident, continued her work as a waitress in a cafe where she cooked, washed the dishes, waited on *421patrons, and generally stood on her feet all day — the same thing she had done before the accident. The jury was authorized to find that there had been no loss of consortium. Indeed there is at best only an inference or suggestion of it. There was evidence that Mr. White’s car could be repaired to its condition before the accident for $2,188.
A verdict for $2,500 in Mr. White’s favor, therefore, can not be said, as a matter of law, to be inadequate.
I would affirm the judgments.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Bell and Judge Pannell concur in this dissent.