Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hunt v. Schmitt
Citations: 190 Ga. App. 554; 379 S.E.2d 409; 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 292Docket: 77774
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; February 7, 1989; Georgia; State Appellate Court
The appellant/plaintiff secured an $18,000 verdict in a personal injury lawsuit after being struck by the defendant’s drunk-driving vehicle while riding his motorcycle. The defendant had a blood alcohol content of .21%. The plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied, prompting him to assert five legal errors. 1. The appellant claimed the trial court incorrectly charged the jury on the duty to yield right-of-way under OCGA 40-6-73, arguing that the defendant was too distant to require yielding. This claim was deemed meritless, as the law mandates yielding to all vehicles on the roadway, and the duty's existence was a factual question supported by disputed evidence, including a witness who observed the plaintiff's failure to look for oncoming traffic. 2. The appellant further argued that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on comparative negligence. The evidence supported this instruction, and the jury was tasked with determining the facts, including the plaintiff's claims about the defendant's distance and intoxication, which were all factual matters already considered in the verdict. 3. The appellant contended that the trial court improperly excluded statements made to his attorney by himself and a third-party witness. However, the court's refusal to admit these documents into evidence was not considered erroneous, as they had already served their purpose in impeachment, and their admission could unfairly bias the jury. 4. Lastly, the appellant's claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the amount was insufficient, and that the denial of a new trial was erroneous were found to lack merit. The evidence was clearly disputed, and the jury's findings were upheld. The jury found the defendant liable for $18,000 of the plaintiff's claimed damages, indicating that they did not hold the defendant responsible for any further damages. The appellant cannot contest the awarded amount without evidence of legal error affecting the damages assigned to either party. The jury's decision falls within their discretion, and absent any clear bias or legal error, it is not subject to appeal. The evidence does not support a directed verdict or a new trial for the plaintiff. The judgment was affirmed, with concurrence from Judges Banke and Beasley.