Appellee Karen Mitchell Cantrell was injured when her automobile was struck by a vehicle, driven by appellant Harry J. Cox, which crossed over the centerline into oncoming traffic. Evidence showed that Cantrell suffered a head injury which caused her to be out of work for two and a half months and necessitated a regimen of physical therapy, muscle relaxants, anti-inflammatory drugs and other medication, and heat treatments for pain. Unrebutted medical testimony was that Cantrell’s condition was chronic or ongoing, having persisted since February 23, 1983, the date of the collision, and that it was quite likely that she would continue to have “intermittent episodes of pain and muscle spasms and discomfort.” Because of this pain her normal, everyday activities were limited.
The jury returned a verdict on March 19, 1986, in favor of Cantrell in the amount of $30,000. Judgment was rendered accordingly, and on April 17, 1986, Cox moved for a new trial. After finding that defense counsel had twice failed to appear for scheduled hearings on the motion for new trial, on September 18, 1986, the motion was dismissed by the trial court. On October 10, 1986, defense counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of his motions for new trial and to set aside the order of September 18. The motion was denied, and this appeal followed.
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into évidence over objection a mortality table and in charging the jury on permanent injury, because there was no evidence that Ms. Cantrell suffered a permanent injury. On the contrary, however, Ms. Cantrell’s physician testified that she was treated for cervical strain caused by an initial head injury incurred in the automobile collision which caused chronic or ongoing pain and muscle spasm; that she needed to be on constant physical therapy and medication; and that she would “for a very long time, if not for a permanent condition, have intermittent episodes of pain and hopefully intermittent episodes of complete remission.” The doctor further testified that in the cases of cervical strain which he had seen, “if they are going to resolve, they usually do resolve within several months period of time.” Based on what he had seen, he prognosticated that Ms. Cantrell would continue to “have intermittent episodes of pain and muscle spasm and discomfort.”
OCGA § 24-4-45 specifically allows mortality tables to be used by the jury to determine damages in cases involving permanent injuries. “The fact that injuries which occurred several years prior to the trial are still disabling in character is itself sufficient to authorize a jury to find that such injuries are permanent. [Cit.]”
Atlanta Transit System v. Biggs,
3. Appellant’s assertion that a new trial is warranted because the trial court allowed the pleadings to go out with the jury is likewise without merit. The trial court instructed the jury that the pleadings did not constitute evidence or proof of what they said, but were
4. Appellant objected to the trial court’s failure to give his requested charges on “the magnification and exaggeration of damages,” but stated no grounds for the objection. Such an objection is insufficient to apprise the court of the corrections needed to cure the alleged error or to satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 5-5-24 (a).
Green v. Dillard,
5. Appellant’s requested jury instructions on accident were not justified by the evidence. He was charged with crossing the centerline in violation of OCGA § 40-46-40 (a) at the time he hit Ms. Cantrell’s automobile head-on, and pled guilty and was sentenced therefor in recorder’s court. A violation of the Uniform Rules of the Road prima facie establishes negligence per se in the absence of a valid defense.
Johnson v. McAfee,
Appellant denied any negligence or fault on his part, or that he was the proximate cause of the collision. The evidence showed that he was driving downhill around a curve to his right on the inside lane before he crossed the centerline. The police estimated appellant’s speed at about 25 m.p.h. and Ms. Cantrell’s at 20 m.p.h. It was raining and the streets were wet. Neither driver was found to have been drinking. However, appellant did not allege or show that his failure to drive in the proper lane was in the exercise of ordinary care or that it arose from an unforeseen or unexplained cause. See, e.g.,
Wilhite v. Tripp,
“[U]nder the facts of the case
sub judice,
the trial court was correct both in giving a jury instruction to the effect that [one who violates the rules of the road while using the public highways is negligent as a matter of law, but must be the proximate cause or contribute to the injury complained of by the plaintiff], and in refusing to instruct the jury on legal accident. ... It is well settled that violation of a statute, including those regulating traffic, is negligence
per se.
[Cits.] As to the propriety of a jury instruction on legal accident, this court’s decision in
Chadwick v. Miller,
[supra,] sets forth a definition of legal accident which clearly excludes fact situations such as that in the instant case. An instruction on legal accident would have been improper under the facts of the case at bar, and [this enumeration] is without merit.”
White v. Cline,
6. Appellant also protests the trial court’s refusal to give his requested charge on nominal damages being awarded “if the injury is small or the mitigating circumstances are strong.” OCGA § 51-12-4. Not only did the evidence not justify the charge (see
U-Haul of Western Ga. v. Ford,
7. Appellant complains that the verdict of $30,000 in damages was excessive and showed undue bias and prejudice. This court has consistently observed “that with reference to actions in a superior court tried upon the facts before a jury, even though the findings of fact contended for by the appellant would have been authorized by the evidence presented on the trial, yet, where the facts found by the jury were authorized by the evidence, such findings will not be set aside. [Cits.] Where the trial judge approves the verdict, the sole question for determination is whether there is any evidence to authorize it, not with a consideration with a view toward upsetting it. [Cit.] We find that necessary quantum and quality of evidence in this case. Likewise, questions concerning the amount of damages to be awarded for pain and suffering, past, present and future are for the enlightened conscience of the jurors. [Cits.] We decline to substitute our judgment based upon a cold record for that of enlightened jurors who heard the evidence and saw the witnesses.”
Southern R. Co. v. Oliver,
Judgment affirmed.