lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
GARMON v. STERN.
40103.
Action for damages. DeKalb Civil and Criminal Court. Before Judge Morgan.
NICHOLS, Presiding Judge.
The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial on the general grounds only.
Charles A. Stern, as plaintiff, sued Willie Carl Garmon, as defendant, in the Civil and Criminal Court of DeKalb County for property damages in the amount of $500 to plaintiff's automobile as a result, plaintiff contends, of the negligence of defendant having suddenly and without warning turned his automobile, which he was driving at the time, to the right and across the path of plaintiff's automobile; that defendant's automobile was in the lane of traffic to the left of plaintiff's automobile; that the turning of defendant's automobile to the right and across the path of plaintiff's automobile was so sudden and abrupt that plaintiff was unable to avoid the collision with defendant's automobile. To plaintiff's petition defendant filed his answer and cross-bill in which he contends he was without fault in the premises and contends that said collision was the result of plaintiff's negligence in failing to apply his brakes and stopping his automobile before running into and striking the rear of defendant's car, damaging the same to the extent of $513 for which he sues. The case was tried on September 10, 1962, before a jury and a verdict in the amount of $400 was returned in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant filed his motion for a new trial on the usual general grounds only and the trial court on January 25, 1963, overruled same. To such judgment adverse to him the defendant excepted, assigns error and brings the case here for review.
" 'In passing on the general grounds of a motion for new trial, this court passes not on the weight but on the sufficiency of the evidence. It is our duty to determine whether the verdict as rendered can be sustained under any reasonable view taken of the proofs submitted to the jury.' Ingram v. State, 204 Ga. 164, 184 (48 SE2d 891); Farlow v. Brown, 208 Ga. 646, 648 (68 SE2d 903). See also Bibb Cigar &c. Co. v. McSwain, 95 Ga. App. 659, 661 (98 SE2d 128)." Poppell v. Smutney, 106 Ga. App. 480 (127 SE2d 335). The plaintiff presented evidence in support of his contentions and the defendant presented evidence in support of his contentions. The jury trying the case found in favor of the plaintiff's contentions and it cannot be said that the trial court erred in overruling defendant's motion for new trial on the general grounds only.
Judgment affirmed. Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.
James R. Venable, for plaintiff in error.
DECIDED MAY 16, 1963.
Friday May 22 22:16 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com