This is а personal injury case arising from an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, Hugh C. Odom was riding as a passenger in a car driven by Fred E. Schofield. They were returning from a short business trip. Virgil M. Snellgrose was driving a car in the opposite direction when he pulled his car into Schofield’s lane to pass several cars. Schofield, seеing the car coming toward him in his lane of traffic, veered off the road to his right. Because he was abreast of the ears he was attempting to pass, Snellgrose pullеd off the road to his left. The two cars collided, resulting in serious injuries to Odom.
Subsequently, Odom suеd both Schofield and Snellgrose for the expenses he incurred as a result of his prolonged hospitalization and rehabilitation, and for lost wages and loss of future earnings due to a permanent disability resulting from the accident. Odom’s wife also sued the two for loss of consortium.
The cause proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a vеrdict for Mr. Odom against Snellgrose in the amount of $35,000. The Defendant Schofield received a favorable verdict as to Mr. Odom’s claim, and the jury found for both Defendants as to Mrs. Odom’s consortium claim. The Odoms appeal from the judgment on the verdicts, alleging threе errors.
The Odoms argue that the trial judge erred in not finding Schofield guilty of negligence per se, and in nоt directing a verdict in their behalf. They argue that because the testimony was conclusive that Schofield was operating his vehicle at a speed in excess of thе statutory speed limit, the trial judge was constrained to find Schofield guilty of negligence per se.
As Chief Justice Torbert pointed out in Fox v. Bartholf,
Indeed, the trial judge gave the following requested charge: “The violation of certain of these rules оf the road by persons using the public highways is negligence as a matter of law; such negligеnce, however, in order to be actionable on the part of the Plaintiff, must prоximately cause or proximately contribute to the injury complained of by the Plаintiff.”
Here, it was not unreasonable for a jury to find that Schofield’s asserted operаtion of his vehicle in excess of the statutory speed limit did not proximately cause Mr. Odom’s injuries, in light of the fact that Schofield’s vehicle was struck by an oncoming car travеling in the wrong lane. Furthermore, it is possible that the jury concluded from the evidence that, despite Mr. Odom’s assertions, Schofield had not violated the statutory speed limit. Thus, the triаl court did not err in denying the Odoms’ motion for directed verdict.
The Hospital Bills
Odom next claims that the trial judge erred in not allowing him to introduce into evidence the hospital bills. While Odom correctly points to Code 1975, §§ 12-21-5, -7, as providing a procedure for the authentication of hospital records, our search of the evidence of record fails to reveal a copy of either the hospital records or the statutorily presсribed certification. Thus, without the proffered evidence before us, there is nothing presented for this Court’s review.
The Social Security Benefits
At a pretrial conference, Odom filed a motion in limine to exclude from evidence any testimony as to benеfits received through Social Security or workmen’s compensation. The motion was granted as to the workmen’s compensation benefits, but was denied as to the Soсial Security benefits. At trial, however, Odom made no objection to the introduction оf evidence that he had received Social Security benefits.
We have held рreviously that a mov-ant who receives an adverse ruling on a motion to exclude evidence, made in li-mine, preserves the adverse ruling for post-judgment and appellate review only if he objects to the introduction of the evidence when it is offerеd at trial, and if he assigns specific grounds for the objection. Liberty National Life Ins. Co. v. Beasley,
Consequently, because we find no merit in the Odoms’ allegations of error, the judgment is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Although both Mr. and Mrs. Odom are shown as appellants in the notice оf appeal, the only