Court Opinion

ID: 9597496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:59:23.155811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:38.156345
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge.
White, the appellant, brought this action seeking recovery for the death of her husband, who was killed when a Seaboard Coast Line train collided with his truck. A jury verdict was returned in the appellee’s favor, and White appeals the judgment entered on that verdict, contending there were errors in evidentiary rulings and in the charge. We find no reversible error and affirm the judgment.
1. As the decedent’s truck approached a railroad crossing in Ambrose, Georgia, warning lights and bells indicated an approaching train. The view between the train and the truck was obstructed by railroad tank cars parked on a side track. One truck pulled up to and traversed the crossing a few seconds before the decedent attempted to. The decedent approached slowly, stopped or nearly stopped, then pulled onto the track and was broadsided by the train. The appellant attempted to introduce testimony concerning prior malfunctions of the warning devices at this crossing, purportedly to show that the devices occasionally became activated although no train was coming. If this was true, and if it was commonly known, then an inference might be raised in the minds of the jury that the decedent thought there was no train coming as he pulled onto the track. Such an inference is relevant to determining the amount, if any, of the decedent’s negligence; the testimony was therefore admissible. Steiner v. Melvin, 143 Ga. App. 97 (1977).
However, at the time the testimony was excluded the trial court was not informed what the witness would have answered, and how that answer would have been material and would have benefited the appellant. The exclusion of admissible testimony does not constitute reversible error *822unless the trial court is apprised of these factors. Griffin v. Henderson, 117 Ga. 382 (43 SE 712) (1903).
Argued May 3, 1977
Decided November 10, 1977.
Edwin M. Saginar, for appellant.
Jay, Garden, Sherrell & Smith, Clayton Jay, Jr., for appellees.
2. The remaining objections to evidentiary rulings and the charge are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., concurs. McMurray, J., concurs specially.