Marta bus accident8/12/2023 ![]() ![]() § 59-716 to disqualify this juror for any financial or other interest his father may have had in the outcome of the suit. However, it was clearly within the scope of discretion afforded the trial court by Code Ann. Appellee asserts that counsel for appellant failed to object to this juror's excusal, but the voir dire examination, if transcribed, was not included in the record on appeal. Appellant complains of the excusal by the trial court upon its own motion of a prospective juror who was the son of a physician testifying in her behalf, contending that this did not constitute grounds for disqualification for cause. The accident charge was given to the jury immediately following instructions as to proximate cause, was a correct statement of the law, and was not misleading or confusing as insisted by appellant. While appellee does not specifically raise such a defense in its pleadings, it did contend that but for the unforeseen action of the van, the collision would not have occurred. ![]() But it is also often used to indicate a happening which, although not wholly free from negligence by some person, was not proximately caused by a failure of either of the parties to a case to exercise ordinary care in the situation.' " Simms v. "`An accident in a strict legal sense, as applied to negligence cases, refers to an event which is not proximately caused by negligence, but instead arises from an unforeseen or unexplained cause. Appellant's objections to the court's giving in charge the doctrine of accident are without merit. We find no error for any reason urged on appeal." Firestone Tire c. "The jury resolved the factual questions concerning contrary to those contentions. (Emphasis supplied.) Taken as a whole, the court's charges on negligence clearly and fully embraced the appellant's "contentions," were applicable to the facts of the case and correct as abstract principles of law. " further contravening the construction appellant seeks to place on the questioned language. The court also instructed the jury "that if you do not find that the defendant was negligent in some way as contended by the plaintiff, that would be the end of your investigation. In charging the jury that the plaintiff must prove "all the essential contentions," the direction was unmistakable that the plaintiff must establish the one "essential contention," i.e., the defendant's negligence, in any of the factual situations presented in order to recover. The trial court pointed out to the jury that the contentions of the plaintiff and defendant had been outlined and argued in the opening statements and closing arguments, and that inasmuch as they had heard the evidence presented in the case the issues were before them. Her contention was premised upon several factual allegations, any one of which if determined by the jury to be true would have authorized a finding of negligence. Appellant's sole legal contention was that MARTA's bus driver was negligent in the performance of his duties, thereby being the proximate cause of her injuries. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |