Court Opinion

ID: 9855796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:31:17.918531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:04.575664
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellant complains of this court’s holding in Division 1 with regard to the trial court’s charge as it related to any liability of the appellee Kuhlke. These complaints are not well-founded since, error or not, the appellant is in no position to complain. The trial court did instruct the jury that either or both defendants could be found liable for negligence. The jury, apparently applying the principles of contributory negligence, found the dangerous condition of the ladder, by whomever caused, was responsible for only $5,000 of the appellant’s damages. In other words, only $5,000 in damages were found to be due to parties other than the appellant. Under these circumstances, the appellant cannot complain, for whatever reason, that one of the defendants was released, since the appellant would not have been entitled to a greater recovery in any case. See especially O’Quinn v. Douglas, A. & G. R. Co., 7 Ga. App. 309 (66 SE 810), where we held that “any error of law relating to the defendant’s liability was rendered harmless by the verdict [for the plaintiff], unless it was such as might have influenced the jury to reduce the amount that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.”
Appellant’s complaints concerning Division 2, 3, and 4 beg the questions which are clearly and adequately decided in the opinion and are, accordingly, without merit.

Rehearing denied.