Aрpellant Mark L. Gates brought the instant personal injury action against appellee Roy C. Navy III in the State Court of Cobb County. After two days of hearing evidence, a Cobb County jury found in favor of Navy. Gates appeals, contending that the trial court erred (1) in excluding any evidence that Navy fled the scene of the accident from the compensatory damages phase of trial; (2) in partially redacting his “negligence per se” charge; (3) in refusing to give his “no right to assume road is clear” and “anticipation of consequences” charges; and (4) in charging on comparative negligence. Finding no error, we affirm.
This action arose out of a motor vehicle incident which occurred at a Cobb County Department of Transportation (“DOT”) road construction site. Gates filеd suit to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained when an exterior mirror of Navy’s truck struck Gates’ arm while he was working at the DOT construction site. Gates also sought punitive damages based on his сlaim that Navy fled the scene of the incident after being advised that Gates was injured and that the police were being called. Following the trial by jury on Gates’ compensatory damages clаim, the trial court granted Navy’s motion for a directed verdict on the punitive damages claim.
1. Gates first contends that the trial court erred in excluding from the compensatory damages phase of trial any testimony or evidence showing that Navy left the scene of the accident before the police arrived. See
Cheevers v. Clark,
Finally, any error in the trial court’s initial exclusion of the evidence was harmless for an additional reason. The trial court later reconsidered its ruling and gave Gates’ counsel an opportunity to further cross-examine Navy for the purpose of establishing that Navy “did not stay at the scene, and that he did not report the accident.” Gates’ counsel declined to do so. Under these circumstances, we find no error.
2. Gates next contends that the state court erred by omitting the wоrds “while driving through a construction zone in violation of [OCGA] § 40-6-75” from the charge given to the jury onnegligence per se. In lieu of giving Gates’ requested charge on negligence per se verbatim, the trial cоurt first charged the jury using the language of the aforesaid statute: “The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to any authorized vehicle or pedestrian actually engaged in work upon a highway within аny highway construction or maintenance area indicated by official traffic-control devices.” OCGA§ 40-6-75 (a). The trial court then charged the jury on negligence per se: “The plaintiff contends thаt the defendant violated certain laws or ordinances. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the defendant failed to yield to the plaintiff who was working on the roadway. Such a violatiоn would be called negligence per se, or negligence as a matter of law.”
“It is well established that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error.” (Footnote omitted.)
Wadkins v. Smallwood,
3. Gates сontends the trial court erred in refusing two of his requests to charge the jury. Gates contends the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury that “the driver of a motor vehicle has no right to assume that the rоad ahead of him is clear of pedestrians, and he must maintain a diligent outlook therefor [sic].” See
Young v. Kitchens,
[I]n order for a party to be liable for negligence, it is not necessary that they [sic] should have been able to anticipate the particular consequences, which ensued. It is sufficient if, in ordinary prudеnce, they might have foreseen some injury, which would result from their act or omission and that consequences, of a generally injurious nature, might result.
See
Bayshore Co. v. Pruitt,
“The specific grounds advancеd at trial for objection or exception to a charge control the extent of appellate review of the charge.”
Continental Research Corp. v. Reeves,
In light of these principles, we find no error in thе trial court’s refusal to give the charges requested by Gates. The first requested charge related to Navy’s duty of care and was not adjusted to the specific facts of this case. The trial court properly charged the jury regarding Navy’s duty of care; the trial court charged the jury that a
*183
driver has a duty to yield the right of way to “authorized pedestrians actually engaged in work upon the highway. . . .”
2
“Rеversible error will not be found in the refusal of the trial court to give a charge which, while constituting a correct statement of an abstract principle of law, was not adjusted to the evidence introduced at trial.” (Citation omitted.)
Campbell v.
Cozad,
The second requested charge provided an abstract definition that went to the issue of foreseeability. “While a correct statement of the law, this charge did not address a disputed issue in the instant case.”
Process Posters v. Winn-Dixie Stores,
4. Finally, Gates contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury on comparative negligence. “A charge on a given subject is justified if there is even slight evidence from which a jury could infer a conclusion rеgarding that subject.
[Sanders v. Moore,
However, Gates argues that Navy forfeited any right to a comparative negligence charge, given Navy’s testimony accusing Gates of purposely stepping into the roadway and striking his vehicle. Gates has misconstrued our comparative negligence case law. “It is well-settled that the defenses of comparative negligence, negligence per se, assumption of the risk and contributory negligence are not valid defenses to intentional, wilful, or wanton and reckless torts, and it is inappropriate in such cases to instruct the jury thereon.” (Citations omitted.)
Hopkins v. First Union Bank,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Gates’ cоunsel conceded as much at trial. His trial counsel stated: “I don’t know that it makes a big difference other than specifying exactly which code section we allege that they violated. And I guess it’s probably cured by the fact that you just read the code section.”
A duty to yield encompasses a duty to lookout.