Powell v. JacksonPowell v. Jackson
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Deen
Thе appellee’s defense to the actiоn was that the collision was the result of a sudden slowing by the appellant of his vehicle. The appеllant urges that there was insufficient evidence of this to warrant the jury’s verdict in favor of the appellеe.
The appellee testified as to the аppellant’s decrease in speed: “... I wouldn’t say there was an abrupt slowing up, but it was slowing up to a dеgree where I couldn’t stop.” The appellant’s attorney elicited the following response on direct examination of the investigating officer: “And Osсar Robert Jackson — he stated to me that the Powell vehicle slowed up suddenly, which caused him to strike the rear of that vehicle.” The appellаnt urges that even though unobjected to this was a self-serving declaration by the appellee and аs hearsay had no probative value. Indeed, as a general rule self-serving declarations arе hearsay and have no probative value; thе statement here however was part of the rеs gestae and would have been admissible into evidence even as against a hearsay objeсtion. Land v. McClure, 135 Ga. App. 243, 244 (217 SE2d 600).
The investigating officer further testified that he was thе distance of “one traffic lane and the median” away from the scene of this accident when it оccurred, that traffic was “real heavy” on that рart of the highway, that he heard the tires squealing and saw the collision, and that the appellee’s tires left skid marks of approximately 30 feet. The offiсer was then asked: “Was it your impression from when you hеard the tires and looked up and everything that prоbably [the appellant] had had to bring his car to а stop rather quickly because of the traffic backup?” The answer was yes. Then he was asked: “And that’s сonsistent with what [the appellee] told you, too, isn’t it?” Again the answer was yes. The appellant urges this tеstimony was, even though unobjected to, speculаtive and conjectural or based on hearsay and without probative value. The evidence of the officer was proper and admissible. Massee v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 128 Ga. App. 439 (197 SE2d 459).
The Suрreme Court of this state has only recently held that in cases of rear-end collision “the liability, degreе of *36 liability, or lack of liability on the part of any invоlved driver depends upon a factual resolutiоn of the issues of diligence, negligence, and proximate cause” and that these issues are, except in rare cases, to be resolved by the jury. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jones, 236 Ga. 448, 451 (224 SE2d 25). There being evidence before the jury to support their verdict, the motion for new trial was properly overruled. See Hay v. Carter, 94 Ga. App. 382, 384 (94 SE2d 755).
Judgment affirmed.
Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.