Court Opinion

ID: 9607182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:56:01.567118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:37.410061
License: Public Domain

Pannell, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the reversal of the case based on the exceptions to the charge in Ground 2 of the majority opinion for two reasons: (1) The objections to the charge were not sufficient to raise a question for this court to consider; and, (2) The charge as given, when considered in connection with the remainder of the charge, was harmless error.
1. The objections to the charge were not sufficient to comply with Section 17(a) of the Appellate Practice Act (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 31, as amended; Code Ann. § 70-207); Royal Frozen Foods Co. v. Garrett, 119 Ga. App. 424, 427 *839(167 SE2d 400); City of Macon v. Smith, 117 Ga. App. 363, 377 (160 SE2d 622); Black v. Aultman, 120 Ga. App. 826, 828 (172 SE2d 336); Fidelity-Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. v. Mauldin, 123 Ga. App. 108, 111 (179 SE2d 525); A-1 Bonding Service v. Hunter, 125 Ga. App. 173,174 (4b) (186 SE2d 566); Bailey v. Todd, 126 Ga. App. 731, 732 (2) (191 SE2d 547). These objections, at most, merely identified the charge but stated no ground of objection as required by the statute. They, therefore, present nothing for review.
In order to reach a decision on the charges in the absence of a ground of objection, the majority go through the old fashioned tongue and cheek maneuver of "knocking down a straw man” by blandly holding that the law no longer requires that counsel must point out what the court should have charged, citing as authority, A-l Bonding Service v. Hunter, 125 Ga. App. 173, 174 (4b), supra, which (on p. 183) overruled the requirement of Ga. Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642 (149 SE2d 393) that "The grounds of error urged must fully apprise the court of the error committed and the correction needed to cure the error . . .” What the majority overlooked is that the A-l Bonding Service case expressly ruled that the ground of objection to a charge must still be stated in accordance with the decisions above cited. The appellant merely identified the charge and stated nothing further. The majority construe this as an objection to a charge on the subject matter, whereas, it could just as easily be construed as an objection to the manner in which the subject matter was charged. The majority confuse the lack of particularity required in an enumeration of error with the requirement of the statute, that one objecting to a charge must state "distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.” Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1072, 1078 (Code Ann. § 70-207).
2. During the testimony of the husband, where much emphasis was put on the cosmetic nature of his injuries, the court warned the jury with this instruction: "I want to inform the jury, however, they are not involved with any injuries that may have been sustained by this witness here, the only person who may recover in this *840case at all is the wife.” At the conclusion of the argument, the trial judge charged the jury: "It is admitted that the Plaintiffs husband was injured and damaged in a collision between an automobile in which he was riding and a truck operated by the Defendant, Tri-State Culvert Manufacturing Company, Incorporated. The only issue then that is left for you to determine in this case is what amount of damages, if any, has been sustained by the plaintiff in this case by the loss of consortium with her husband.” He then charged the jury on consortium and that the wife was seeking damages for loss of consortium. He then gave the charge complained of: "I instruct you that that is the only item of damages which she seeks to recover in this case. You are not concerned in this case with whether or not — whether the husband was or was not — I mean, how much the husband was or was not injured or damaged in the case. He cannot recover from you anything in this particular case.” It was clear from this charge that the trial judge was not instructing the jury to disregard the injuries to the husband, insofar as these injuries affected loss of consortium to the wife, but only insofar as those injuries related to a claim of monetary damages by the husband himself. In my opinion, the jury could not have possibly been misled by this charge when considered as a whole and in connection with the remainder of the charge.
I would affirm for the reasons given above.