95 Ga. App. 11 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1957
Where, as in this case, the evidence was conflicting and a verdict was not demanded, this court will not disturb the first grant of a new trial. This is true even though the trial judge may have based his grant of a.new trial on a special ground of the motion therefor. The verdict not being demanded, the judgment granting a first new trial will be affirmed without deciding the special grounds of the motion for new trial. Code § 6-1608; Buchanan v. Nash, 211 Ga. 874 (1) (89 S. E. 2d 637); Belk v. Cook, 51 Ga. App. 163 (1) (179 S. E. 870); Throgmorton v. Trammell, 90 Ga. App. 433 (83 S. E. 2d 256).
Judgment affirmed.
Upon the trial the plaintiff testified that he was proceeding east on Bransford Road and stopped at a street corner which immediately precedes the intersection of Bransford Road and Buena Vista Avenue; that he then continued in second gear to the intersection of Bransford Road and Buena Vista Avenue, where he stopped and looked both ways; that everything was clear and he proceeded on at about 10 or 12 miles per hour; and that he never saw the automobile which collided with his as he was crossing Buena Vista Avenue. L. Hutto, a police officer, testified that the speed limit was 30 miles an hour at the intersection where the collision occurred; that the defendant stated to him she did not see the plaintiff’s car until the collision; and that the plaintiff’s car was struck on the right side at about the middle. Thomas Dicks testified that he arrived at the scene of the accident just as the ambulance was leaving; that he asked the defendant“How did the accident happen?” and the defendant replied “I don’t know, never did see him, don’t know how it happened, never did see the car”; and that he asked her the same question in the emergency room and she gave the same reply.
Miss Hayes, the defendant, testified that she was driving about 30 miles an hour; that she saw the plaintiff’s car before the collision ; that the plaintiff neither slowed down nor stopped before the collision; and that she had not stated she did not see the plaintiff’s car before' the collision. Miss Joy Williams testified that she was riding with the defendant 'and saw the plaintiff’s car prior to the collision; that the plaintiff was going about 30 miles an hour and did not stop before entering the intersection; that the defendant was traveling about 30 miles an hour; and that she never heard the defendant state that she did not see the plaintiff’s car prior to the collision.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff, made a motion for new trial 'which was granted. The defendant excepts to that ruling.