Appellant Mrs. Deborah Verde brought suit to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained when the automobile in which she was riding was struck from the rear. Hеr husband, appellant Paul Verde, sought damages for loss of consortium. Defendants in the action were appellee The Granary Enterprises, Inc., owner of the truck, and its employee, appellee, Mahlon Lewis Risely, who was operating the truck at the time of the collision. A jury returned verdicts in favоr of both appellee defendants and against both appellant plaintiffs. The trial court entered judgment on those verdicts. Appellants apрeal from the entry of judgment on the verdicts and the denial of their motion for new trial.
1. Several enumerations of error raise the general grounds. Although aрpellants contend that the verdicts are against the weight of the evidence, weighing the evidence is a function for the jury and the trial court, not an aрpellate court.
Ridley v. State,
2. Aрpellants contend certain testimony was erroneously elicited by appellees, in violation of an earlier ruling by the trial court in connectiоn with appellants’ motion in limine. When this objection was raised below, the trial court recalled that, at the pre-trial hearing on appellants’ motiоn in limine, it “did not ever make a ruling as such on” the admissibility of the evidence. Our review of the transcript of the hearing on the motion in limine shows that the trial court is entirеly correct. However, even assuming that the trial court had ruled on appellants’ motion for limine and that eliciting the contested evidence were violative of that ruling, this alone would not establish re
*774
versible error. The introduction of the evidence must still be shown to be harmful error. See
Reno v. Reno,
3. Appellants contend that the trial court erroneously charged the jury аs follows: “I charge you that the mere fact that a vehicle is struck in the rear, is not sufficient to fix liability on the driver of the vehicle to the rear of the vehicle which is struck.” As noted above, this is a correct statement of the law. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jones, supra; Chance v. Hanson, supra.
4. Appellants urge that the trial court erred in refusing to give several of their oral requests to charge. “Requests to charge must be timely and properly submitted in
writing.
[Cits.] ‘It is never error to deny an
oral
request to charge.’ [Cit.]” (Emphasis supplied.)
Slaughter v. Linder,
5. Appellants assert that counsel for appellees was erroneously allowed to make an improper closing argument to the jury. When allegedly improper argument is made to the jury, opposing counsel must object at trial or otherwise invoke a ruling of the trial court. Failure so to object constitutes waiver.
Cochran v. State,
6. On cross-examination, Mrs. Verde was questioned with respеct to a medical examination that she had been ordered by the court to undergo. Appellants’ counsel objected that the questioning was “misleаding to the jury. I don’t think there was an independent Order to the Court ... I think it was at request of Defendants for an order.” Thereafter, both the trial court and appellees’ counsel stated that the reference had been to an examination that had been ordered by the court at the request of appellees and not to an examination that had been ordered by the court sua sponte. The entire colloquy ended with the trial court’s observation: “That ought tо clarify it.” No other objection was raised by appellants.
Appellants urge on appeal that this portion of Mrs. Verde’s cross-examination wаs misleading and prejudicial. It is clear, however, that in response to appellants’ objection, the jury was apprised of the fact that it was appellees and not the court that had initiated the medical examination. Although appellants now urge other reasons why the questioning was misleading and prejudicial, none of them was raised
*775
before the trial court. Accordingly, we cannot consider them on appeal.
Holiday Homes v. Bragg,
7. Appellants assert that it was error to allow into evidence certified copies of an indictment, plea, conviction and sentence of appellant Mr. Verde for financial transaction card theft. These documents were offered for purposes of impeaching Mr. Verde by showing his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The procedures employed by appellees were entirely proper, and there was no error. See generally
Doggett v. Simms,
Appellants also contend that the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of the indictment without first masking it as to any reference made therein to their daughter, who had been one of their witnesses in the instant case. Appellants’ daughter was not listed on the indictment as a defendant. However, her name did apрear numerous times in its material allegations. Appellants could only have been prejudiced by introduction of the unmasked indictment if the jury concluded that it reflected unfavorably upon their daughter’s credibility as a witness in the instant case. However, it is clear that the masking over of numerous portions of the material allegations of the indictment was not a viable solution to this potential unwarranted construction of the evidence. See
Foster v. Waverly Hall United Dev. Corp.,
It does not appear that appellants requested any limiting instructions as to the permissible scope of the impeaching evidence. Moreover, the testimоny that was given by appellants’ daughter in the instant case related solely to the issue of damages, not appellees’ liability. Accordingly, even if prоper limiting instructions had been requested but refused, no reversible error would be shown. Cf.
Fritz v. Eller,
8. Appellants enumerate as error the trial court’s exclusion from evidеnce of certain portions of the depositions of two physicians. The trial court sustained appellees’ objection that the testimony was based upon hypothetical questions which were not supported by facts in evidence. Georgia law is clear that an expert witness may not give oрinions which are based on hypothetical questions not supported by facts in evidence. “Facts used in the question must have evidentiary foundation at the time they are propounded, [cit.], and must be facts established in evidence. [Cit.]”
Rogers v. Eckerd Drugs,
9. There being no reversible error, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed.