Court Opinion

ID: 9586633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:13:31.289616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:45.981979
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
concurring specially. I concur specially in Headnote 1. In my judgment, the statement by the defendant to the plaintiff following the collision: "to go to the doctor that he [defendant] had insurance to take care of it” was not only admissible as a part of the res gestae, but was also admissible as a statement or admission against interest. Unless defendant was *444going to pay the doctor’s bill, it was not within his province to direct the plaintiff to go and see a doctor; further, unless he was negligent, and therefore liable, his liability insurance would not "take care of it.” Sims v. Martin, 33 Ga. App. 486 (1) (126 SE 872); Rentz v. Collins, 51 Ga. App. 782 (2) (181 SE 678); Wade v. Drinkard, 76 Ga. App. 159 (5) (45 SE2d 231); Young v. Carter, 121 Ga. App. 191, 192 (173 SE2d 259); Harper v. Plunkett, 122 Ga. App. 63, 65 (176 SE2d 187).
I concur in the remainder of the judgment reversing this case, reluctantly. This case is from my home county and the parties are well known to me. After a trial by jury, verdicts should ordinarily not be disturbed. But the error of the trial judge in charging the jury on "permanent injuries” as is discussed in Headnote 3 is so plain and palpable that I am compelled to agree that the judgment should be reversed.