Appellant, Rose R. Garrison, slipped and fell upon entering the South Cobb Rich’s store as the first customer of the day on October 17, 1971; she suffered injuries to her tailbone and lower back as a result of the fall and within the week after her fall she was treated by a physician for the injuries to her tailbone. The acute pain in that area was relieved and did not return. Approximately one month later, appellant again fell on her back while moving a box at work. After the second fall, she suffered pain in her lower back different than the pain she had felt in her tailbone and subsequently underwent surgery on her back. She continued to suffer lower back pain from the time of the surgery until the time of trial with no apparent relief indicated for the future.
In August, 1973 appellant filed her claim alleging negligence against Rich’s in Cobb County. She voluntarily dismissed that action and refiled in Fulton County, joining Bonded Building Cleaners as a defendant, the latter being responsible for cleaning the floors at the South Cobb Rich’s store pursuant to a contract with Rich’s. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Bonded Building Cleaners and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rich’s. Garrison appealed, and we affirm.
1. Following appellant’s second fall, she submitted doctor and hospital bills to her employer for payment and filed a claim for workers’ compensation. Evidence of such payment was admitted, over objection by appellant, for the purpose of impeachment and to show causation of appellant’s injuries. Appellant contends that
*664
admission of this evidence was violative of the collateral source rule, which provides that a tortfeasor cannot diminish the amount of his liability by attempting to introduce payments made to the plaintiff by a third party.
Thompson v. Milam,
2. After deliberating for some time, the jury requested in writing that the court list the various areas of negligence for both the defendant and plaintiff. The trial court refused to do so. This was not error, since the trial court charged the jury extensively on the law of negligence, and the jury did not request a recharge on the law but an answer to a question regarding the facts of the case.
Veal v. Barber,
3. Appellant also cites as error the trial court’s refusal to allow appellant’s counsel to state his view of the law in closing argument before the jury. In civil cases, questions of law are to be argued exclusively to the court. Code Ann. § 24-3319 (Superior Court Rule 19);
Metropolitan Publishers Rep., Inc. v. Arnsdorff,
4. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of Bonded Building Cleaners and in instructing the jury to disregard the directed verdict. Appellant testified that she saw nothing on the floor before she fell or right after she fell. Appellant failed to show that Bonded Building Cleaners had in any
*665
way negligently allowed the condition of the floor to become dangerous, or breached any duty owed appellant. Thus, the directed verdict was not error.
Gordon v. Athens Convalescent Center,
5. Appellant’s doctor testified in person on the first day of the trial. Subsequently appellant attempted to introduce the doctor’s testimony by deposition regarding x-rays of appellant. The trial court refused to admit this evidence and refused to permit appellant’s counsel to explain markings on the x-rays to the jury. It is within the trial court’s discretion to permit use of a deposition where the witness is available to testify. Code Ann. § 81A-132 (a) (4). We find no abuse of discretion in this case as the witness was available, testified in person and appellant stated to the court that the witness could be excused at the end of his testimony.
Millholland v. Neal,
6. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury on accident, on temporary injury to appellant, and on substances placed on Rich’s floor by others. An “accident” in its strict sense implies the absence of negligence. The charge was authorized by the evidence where appellant’s fall could have occurred without fault on the part of anyone.
Delk v. Sellers,
7. Finally, appellant contends that the verdict is contrary to the
*666
law and is strongly against the weight of the evidence. After close review of the record, we find no merit in this contention. There was evidence to support the verdict and no error was committed in entering a judgment for the defendant or overruling the plaintiffs motion for new trial insofar as the general grounds are concerned.
Brown v. Worley Shoes,
Judgment affirmed.