Court Opinion

ID: 9559942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:38:57.76103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:53.369992
License: Public Domain

Felton, J.,
dissenting. I am of the opinion that ground 14 of the amended motion for new trial is meritorious, and that -the court erred in denying the plaintiff the right to read in evidence to the jury the depositions of the defendant’s janitor, Clarence Huguley, even though, he was present in court. Without extensive quotation from the opinion, the burden of the court’s ruling in Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Bussey, 95 Ga. 584, .is to the effect that the court must have a stronger reason for excluding the reading of depositions than the mere presence of the witnesses in court. The opinion speaks for itself and reference thereto .seems sufficient. If the reading of the deposition had been allowed, the plaintiff would have had the positive benefit of testimony therein, if the jury accepted it, even had the witness refuted it on the stand, whereas, since the depositions were excluded, the testimony in the depositions could be used only for impeachment purposes, resulting in no affirmative benefit to the plaintiff.
I also think that ground 16 of the amended motion is meritorious. A witness for the defendant was permitted to testify that nothing was done to the floor after the plaintiff fell thereon. It is too well settled to require citation that, if something had been done to the office after the fall to make it safer, such fact would not be admissible in the plaintiff’s behalf. The same reasoning applies to the converse of the proposition. Further argument seems superfluous. And the testimony of the .same witness that nobody had ever fallen in the office was obviously inadmissible.