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
CLARIDY v. BEAR et al.
RODRIGUEZ v. BEAR et al.
51010.
51011.
WEBB, Judge.
Actions for damages. Muscogee State Court. Before Judge Followill.
1. There is no merit in the contention that the judgments must be reversed because of inadequacy of the verdicts. Each plaintiff suffered from conditions unrelated to this collision, and it was for the jury to sort out the reasonable and necessary expenses and damages attributable to the accident. See, e.g., Miller v. Dean, 113 Ga. App. 869 (1) (150 SE2d 191); Johnson v. Cook, 123 Ga. App. 302, 303 (1) (180 SE2d 591); Taylor v. Roberson, 127 Ga. App. 24 (192 SE2d 384); Hiter v. Shelp, 134 Ga. App. 814 (216 SE2d 666).
2. Reversal is not required because the trial court failed to admit mortality tables into evidence. The ages of the plaintiffs were shown, and the trial court charged on future pain and suffering. "Where the age of a person is shown, his expectancy of life may be determined by the jury without any other direct evidence on the subject. Tables of the probable length of life and its probable worth may be useful, but are not conclusive or absolutely essential for that purpose." Standard Oil Co. v. Reagan, 15 Ga. App. 571, 572 (5) (84 SE 69).
3. In plaintiff Claridy's case, error is enumerated upon the trial court's failure to charge her request no. 6, dealing with the aggravation of a pre-existing condition. While plaintiff contends that a medical witness gave testimony that the orthopedic injuries aggravated her pre-existing diabetic condition, we understand the testimony to be that the diabetic condition complicates the treatment of an orthopedic injury. This is the inverse of aggravation of a pre-existing condition, and we find no reversible error.
Grogan, Jones & Layfield, Milton Jones, for appellants.
ARGUED SEPTEMBER 15, 1975 -- DECIDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1975.
Friday May 22 09:52 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