In This Section
THE VERDICT
A publication of GAPTA, Inc.
(Georgia Association or Plaintiffs' Trial Attorneys)
Vol. 2, No...2 September 1960
PRESIDENT'S COLUMN
Plans are now being made for another Legal-Medico Meeting to be sponsored by GAPTA. In order to have a successful seminar it is necessary for it to be well organized and to have the very best possible talent.
It is well recognized by trial lawyers throughout the country, in rendering professional services the trial lawyers must have a vast knowledge outside of the field of law. There is seldom a trial of a personal injury case but that medical testimony in the trial is of paramount importance. Doctors of course, are highly skilled in their field and if lawyers representing both plaintiffs and defendants are to give to the jury all of the facts so there may be a just award, of necessity counsel representing both sides must likewise have at least some medical knowledge in order to properly examine the highly skilled physician.
It is highly important to the members of our association for each to enter wholeheartedly in our endeavors towards the end that the approaching seminar will produce more educational values than anyone in the past. Efforts have been made for each succeeding seminar to prove its worth by attracting not only members of GAPTA but likewise any and all lawyers who would take advantage of the opportunity to attend the sessions. Primarily, the seminar will be educational in character.
We shall in the future give wide publicity to the seminar and in the next President's Column we hope that the dates of the sessions and likewise those participating on the program shall have been chosen.
We wish to call upon all members of GAPTA to lend their efforts towards the success of the approaching meeting in the hopes that the committee which is now handling the arrangements shall feel its efforts were well worthwhile.
In the next column we hope to have more definite information so that each member may be making plans to attend in order that we shall have a large gathering of lawyers.
We feel very keenly the sponsoring of the seminar is one of the best projects sponsored by GAPTA.
Yours for a greater GAPTA,
OSGOOD O. WILLIAMS President
STAFF OF THE VERDICT
Editor ....................... William W. Daniel
Associate Editor ....................... Ross Arnold
BRIEF BANK
In the last issue of "The Verdict" we synopsized four briefs received by the Brief Bank. We now present four more. Please send yours in!
PAUL J. JONES. Jones & Douglas, Dublin WORKMEN'S COMPENSA'T'ION CASE:
The brief was filed in the Superior Court of Hall County, Georgia after the matter had been appealed by the employer and/or insurance carrier from an adverse ruling by a Single Director of the Workmen's Compensation Board. The main issue in this particular controversy was whether the relationship of employer and employee existed between the claimant and the alleged employer.
Briefly, the situation was where A, an employer, employs B as a truck driver at certain wages. Then A leases the truck to C. The question is whether B, the employee can look to C for Workmen's Compensation Benefits in the event he is injured in an accident arising out, of and in the course of his employment. The situation was somewhat complicated in this particular case by the fact that A, the lessor of the truck, was under a contractual duty to maintain the truck during the period of its lease.
The particular accident here occurred while B was off in another state on a mission C had sent him on, but the cause of the accident was connected more or less with the maintenance of the truck, which was a function the Lessor was under a duty to perform.
The case was settled before an appeal was made to one of the appellate courts, but involved a factual situation which is likely to occur more and more as the leasing of trucks and other equipment becomes more prevelant.
A.A. (Abe) NATHAN, Brunswick WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASE :
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals from an award by Single Director, Full Board and Superior Court of Glynn County to claimant -.. because of "total temporary disability" and also for l0% specific disability to the right arm of claimant". Grounds of appeal: (1) That facts found by Single Director did not support the award; (2) That there was insufficient competent evidence to warrant the Single Director in making the award because from March 30, 1946 - May 14, 1946, claimant refused without cause or excuse to submit to a physical examination by employer's physician, and so during such period, was not entitled to the compensation awarded him in violation of Code 114-503; (3) Insufficient competent evidence to warrant a finding of permanent industrial handicap, as there was no evidence whatever to show any loss of use of arm. Claimant's doctor testified that claimant was more subject to re-injury of the arm due to kaloid and scar tissue formation, but this would not meet the total loss test as laid down in Austin Brothers Bridge Company vs. Whitmire, 31 Ga. Appeals 560.
GRACE W. THOMAS, Atlanta WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASE:
Held: "Where an employee who is required to store his employer's delivery truck at his home after completing his deliveries and to return the truck to the employer's place of business the following day, is injured in a collision involving such truck while enroute to his home after having completed a personal mission which he undertook after completing his deliveries but before carrying the truck to his home, the injury is one arising out of and in the course of his employment as is contemplated by the Workmen's Compensation Act."
The Single Director, the Full Board and the Superior Court had held for the defendant, but the Court of Appeals reversed in favor of the claimant. Curtis v. Royal Indemnity Co., et al., 101 Ga. App. l58.
CULLEN M. WARD, Ward, Brooks & Williams, Atlanta: NEGLIGENCE of bus operator in failing to open rear door. The case came to the Court of Appeals for the second time, on the overruling of a motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto, and the only issue presented was whether the evidence authorized the verdict (See City Council of Augusta v. Hood, 95 Ga. App. 259). The brief cites several Georgia cases to the effect that it is not error to overrule a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto even where the evidence had been In conflict...Brief also cites and quotes several cases to the effect that the carrier owed the plaintiff below the duty of extraordinary care...Brief also cites supporting the proposition that after verdict evidence is construed in its most favorable light to the prevailing party and that the Appellate Court must construe evidence more strongly in favor of verdict. (Atlanta Transit System Inc., Plaintiff in Error vs Mrs. A ice V. Allen, Defendant in Error.
CASES OF INTEREST FROM RECENT NACCA NEWS LETTERS
WRONGFUL DEATH -- MEASURING DAMAGES FOR DEATH OF HUSBAND UNDER GEORGIA DEATH ACT -- EVIDENCE -- O.K. TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF SEPARATION OF PLAINTIFF & HER HUSBAND & HIS FAILURE TO CONTRIBUTE TO SUPPORT OF WIFE & CHILDREN & OF HER CONTEMPLATION OF DIVORCE. Willitt v. Purvis, 276
F. 2d 129 (5th Cir. 19bO)(at end of 1st trial, in which evidence of husband's failure to support wife & children was erroneously admitted, jury awarded widow $1,750; plaintiff obtained new trial & in 2d trial, in which such irrelevant evidence was excluded , jury awarded plaintiff verdict of $10,000).
DISCOVERY -- AS TO EXISTENCE & LIMITS OF DEFENDANT'S AUTO LIABILITY INSURANCE -HELD, IN CALIFORNIA, RELEVANCY TO THE SUBJECT MATTER RATHER THAN RELEVANCY TO THE ISSUES IS THE STATUTORY TEST -- DISCOVERY OF LIMITS OF DEFENDANT'S AUTO LIABILITY POLICY ENFORCEABLE UNDER INTERROGATORIES SERVED IN PERSONAL INJURY ACTION -DISCOVERY ACT TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED --IN CALIF., CONTRACTUAL RELATION EXISTS BETWEEN CARRIER & PERSONAL INJURY PLAINTIFF. Pettie v. Superior Court 3 Cal. Rptr. 267 (Cal. App. 1960) (ct relied largely upon Laddon v. Superior Court, 334 P. 2d 638 (Cal. App. 1959) 23 NACCA Law Journal 129-132 (discovery of defendant's malpractice insurance allowed).
ASSAULT & BATTERY --DEFENDANT STRUCK PLAINTIFF WITH BOTTLE IN COURSE OF ARGUMENT ABOUT CHARGES FOR REPAIRS AT DEFENDANT'S AUTO SALES ESTABLISHMENT -- DAMAGES-- $15,000 AWARD-SKULL FRACTURE --Plaintiff HELD ENTITLED TO COMPENSATORY & PUNITIVE DAMAGES -- HEARSAY-- TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFF'S WIFE THAT PLAINTIFF INDICATED PAIN BY CONSTANTLY HOLDING HIS HEAD IN A CERTAIN MANNER INDICATED BY WIFE WAS NOT HEARSAY - PRESENT WORTH - DAMAGES FOR PAIN & SUFFERING NEED NOT BE REDUCED TO PRESENT WORTH. Morgan v. Mull, 112 S.E. 2d 661 (Ga. App. 1960).
AGAINST INSURANCE COS. -- LIABILITY TO OWN INSURED FOR EXCESS JUDGMENT-BAD-FAITH REFUSAL TO SETTLE WITHIN POLICY LIMITS --JURY COULD PROPERLY FIND THAT CARRIER GAMBLED WITH ITS INSURED'S RIGHTS BECAUSE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT BY INSURED PARTY WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY LESS THAN POLICY LIMITS, SO CARRIER "MIGHT AS WELL TAKE THEIR CHANCES, THAT THEY HADN'T A THING IN THE WORLD TO LOSE" --JURY COULD ALSO PROPERLY FIND THAT INSURED WAS NOT GUILTY OF BREACH OF COOPERATION CLAUSE --WAIVER OF POLICY DEFENSES BY INSURER'S PAYMENT OF POLICY LIMITS TO INJURED PARTY. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wood, 277 F. 2d 21 (6th Cir. 1960) (2-1) (extensive discussion majority & Dissenting opinions total 25 pages) of evidence sustaining jury's finding of bad-faith refusal to settle within policy limits by insurer).
3350 Centennial Tower
101 Marietta Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 522-8487
Fax: (404) 522-3705
About Us
Since 1956, GTLA has worked tirelessly to ensure that everyday citizens, Georgia families and small businesses are never deprived of their constitutional guarantee of access to true justice. The Mission of GTLA is simple: We are dedicated to protecting the Constitutional promise of justice for all by guaranteeing the right to trial by jury, preserving an independent judiciary, and providing access to the courts for all Georgians.