*1 5, 1985. Feldman, D. Kenneth appellant. Drolet, Slaton, J. Howard Attorney, Joseph

Lewis District R. Goldstein, Attorneys, Assistant District appellee.

69196, OF al. v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY 69214. CRAFT et al.; et and vice versa.

HALL COUNTY Presiding Birdsong, in this

This is the defendants post injury surgical The sued malpractice medical case. appellees’ negligence. Appel- staph caused allegedly infection of lants cite four enumerations error. court of error that the trial urges first enumeration complaint in to con- refusing appellants

erred to to amend the allow enumeration, brief support appellants’ to the of this form evidence. merely Enumeration of Error “Appellant’s states: No. [sic] attempting complaint amend the appellant’s shows that were to [sic] by appellant presen- to conform the adduced evidence [sic] complaint... of their to amend a is basic tation case. The refused to allow is sanctioned law. The trial court [sic] authority is We have to amend No cited. constitutes error.” trial, together what occurred often that a mere statement of argument with the of the do constitute an contentions reason is defined as a support “Argument of contentions. rebuttal, of offered. proof or or a coherent series reasons given (1976). is Dictionary The central element Collegiate Webster’s New why the . argument. supply reason. The function of . is to the reason Acci- party.” of that court should the contentions support Hartford Hau- Taylor, dent &c. Co. v. 65-66 Dev. sen of appellants’ support the enumeration statements saying

nothing repeat Merely contentions. “the but their is sanc- to the evidence is basic and amend conform any to the by law,” authority, without citing tioned without alleged proves explanation record or other of context nothing is no than a naked statement error. more “supply why reason court should argument and does not Co., supra; &c. [appellants].” support the contention Hartford Hausen, by argu- support the enumerated error supra. failure nothing for this court authority or the brief leaves ment citation of the enumerated consider an abandonment and constitutes (2). (c) &c. Summer- Appeals Court Rule Hartford DeCinque, field 2. Appellants ap- contend the trial court’s more, pellants they sought seek to recover was error because but pleading malpractice limited law of in medical $10,000. plead recovery case to for a excess of OCGA 9-11-8. *2 obviously While charge, the trial court erred in this no to it objection by was Segars made no can v. objection and be made now. 322). Printing App. Service 170 Ga. 345 SE2d Bee v. State, (308 420). Moreover, Ga. App. 168 75 SE2d cannot complain that charge harmed them because a verdict was ren- O’Quinn Douglas, Augusta dered In v. &c. R. for defendants. (66 810), 7 Ga. SE we App. “any relating 309 error of law liability by defendant’s rendered harmless verdict [for plaintiff], unless it was as have might influenced the to re- duce the plaintiff amount that was entitled to recover.” also (274 Assoc., Bennett v. Kuhlke & 156 Ga. 113 SE2d case, this the jury’s verdict for the defendants determined defendants all, to be liable at so an erroneous as to the amount by the plaintiffs claimed could not have affected verdict and was Bennett, harmless error. See

3. The remaining merit, enumerations we find without it clearly the law in this state that the standard of care owed a hospi- tal differs that owed by physicians, requires adherence to ordinary locality. standard of care Smith v. Hosp. Auth. of (288 Terrell County, Ga. App. SE2d See also Self Convention, (266 Executive Committee Baptist 245 Ga. 548 On cross-appeal, Hospital Authority complains of the trial court’s denial of its However, motion directed verdict. there was (OCGA (a)) evidence sufficient to submit to the 9-11-50 § and, any case, the issue is jury’s mooted favor of the hospital. The mere ultimately fact that a jury returns a defen- dant’s verdict render the failure to direct a verdict error hindsight. Judgment J., Beasley, specially. J., concurs Carley, affirmed.

concurs in Divisions and 3 and judgment. in the N. Crudup,

John appellants. III, E. appellees. Brim

Beasley, Judge, concurring specially. 1,1 respect

With agree to Division following. wish add the unqualified they to be that position seems or argu- no citation amend, unquestionable needs so recounted page whereon is only the record ment but However, amending refusal. attempt to amend and court’s court, OCGA leave required after had rested plaintiffs Mulkey (a), abuse of discretion. must show an plaintiffs 9-11-15 48) (1982). They Corp., v. Gen. Motors so. begun have not even to do v. YANCEY. LAWRENCEVILLE

69492. CITY OF Beasley, For a case our court. appearance

This is the second this opin- our litigation rise see giving of the basic facts statement ion 691) (1982) April part: “By warranty deed dated which recited Yancey conveyed defendant of Lawrenceville pond. As oxidation certain for use as treatment transfer, City agreed to build *3 part of for the the consideration provide of the date of the deed to bridge road and within six months stated his This covenant was property. with access to on August plain- the In his filed the face of deed. City the a failure consideration because claims inter alia tiff bridge the road.” not built trial, in a verdict of proceeded resulting

Since then the case plaintiff. for the City in enumerates four errors. its plaintiff’s that was error to admit exhibit contended plans systems improvements of a set of for water and sewer consisting city City present engi- possession which neer, properly plans was not authenticated. because the exhibit City agreed whether the ever purpose showing were offered for the line. contemplated putting bridge along a road and City opinion Our 462, 463, supra, “Although signed held: deed was accepted conveyance, constructing later grantee, with its ac- pond upon property. Concurrent treatment oxidation grantor, ceptance of instrument the deed as sealed it, obliga- accepted consequences flowing including all legal tion to fulfill the covenant issue.” obligation and City’s

The terms of deed established and not if cumulative plans, admission of the even constitute so harmful