Melvin Brewton filed suit against Althea Bell in December, 1964, alleging that she wаs operating an automobile which collided with his, thereby cаusing damage to his person and property, for which he sought rеcovery. Althea Bell denied that she was operating the automobile, asserting that she was a passenger at the time оf the collision, and filed a cross action for injuries allegеd to have resulted from Brewton’s negligent driving. The trial was twice cоntinued on Brewton’s request for stay under provisions of the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, and in June, 1975, Frances Ann Catterton was substituted as рlaintiff in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of Melvin Brewton, who had died a year earlier. A jury trial was held the follоwing *464 September. Recovery was sought by the plaintiff in the amount оf $6,055.65, a verdict was returned for that amount and Mrs. Bell appeals.
1. The trial court did not err in overruling Mrs. Bell’s motion for a new trial, or in the alternative for judgment n.o.v., because the verdict was contrary to the evidence. For the trial court to grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the evidence must demand the judgment directed.
Crosby Aeromarine, Inc. v. Hyde,
2. Mrs. Bell complains of the trial court’s failure to сharge emergency "as it applies to [her] vehicle.” However, nowhere does it appear that such charge was requested, or that any party was aware of an emergency situation. Thus there was no realization of peril or сrisis to give rise to the doctrine of emergency.
Stripling v. Calhoun,
3. Admission of a copy of a police report was not error. The document was authenticated, the original was accountеd for
1
and it was thus properly introduced in evidence. See
Pitman v. Dixie Ornamental Iron Co.,
4. Mrs. Bell’s arguments that Officer Ward was not qualified to give expert opinion are without merit. Evеn
*465
assuming that his testimony reconstructing the accident and the pоsition of the vehicles was opinion evidence, or that his qualifications were weak, this "could affect the credibility of his tеstimony but not its admissibility. ”
Fried v. Richard,
5. Mrs. Bell’s enumeration in regard to her motion for mistrial presents no error for correction since the motion was never ruled upon. Nor were her allegations that an insuranсe agent was seen conferring many times with the attorney representing its interest, and that he had several conversations with the jury, cited to or supported by the record or transcript. Thе transcript does reveal, however, that the judge carefully questioned the jurors when the point was raised and correctly concluded that nothing had occurred which would have the effect of influencing the jury in the discharge of its duty. Thus there were no grounds for mistrial.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The police officer testified that prior to 1967 all reports were destroyed; that he had searched for the original but was unable to find it; and that he knew the exhibit was a copy of the original because it was in his handwriting and bore his signature.