"In this setting of conflicting evidence, authorizing varied and conflicting inferences, it was error to refuse to give the requested charges [on the avoidance doctrine and the comparative negligence rule]." Davis v. Hammock, 123 Ga. App. 33, 35 ( 179 S.E.2d 283) (1970). The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff instead of submitting these issues to the jury under appropriate instructions as indicated in the pre-trial order.

" Stroud v. Woodruff, 183 Ga. App. 628, 629 (1) ( 359 S.E.2d 680) (1987). See also Davis v. Hammock, 123 Ga. App. 33, 35 (2) ( 179 S.E.2d 283) (1970). There was sufficient evidence to merit the charges given. Norman v. Williams, 220 Ga. App. 367, 370-371 (4), (5) ( 469 S.E.2d 366) (1996); Whatley v. Henry, 65 Ga. App. 668, 673 (6) ( 16 S.E.2d 214) (1941).

Only slight evidence need exist from which an inference of comparative negligence may be drawn to authorize such a charge. Davis v. Hammock, 123 Ga. App. 33, 36 (3) ( 179 S.E.2d 283) (1970). Evidence was presented from which the jury could infer that Mr. Norman assumed the risk of injury to himself or that his negligence was greater than any of Williams. Because his presence on the highway is required, a highway worker engaged in his work does enjoy a "special status," and he is "justified in assuming that the driver of an automobile will exercise some care to avoid striking him."

Here, even though the jury awarded no amount for pain and suffering, we find no indicia of bias and prejudice for contrary to the plaintiff's assertions on appeal, the evidence was such as to authorize a charge on the principles of comparative negligence. See generally Powers v. Pate, 107 Ga. App. 25, 27 (1) ( 129 S.E.2d 193); Davis v. Hammock, 123 Ga. App. 33, 35 (3) ( 179 S.E.2d 283). "When the rule concerning comparative negligence is involved in a case, the verdict of the jury cannot be set aside on the ground that the amount of the damages awarded is inadequate.

[Cit.]." Davis v. Hammock, 123 Ga. App. 33 (3), 36 ( 179 S.E.2d 283). Judgment reversed.

1. The charge on comparative negligence was authorized by the testimony that the appellant failed to signal his turn. See Davis v.Hammock, 123 Ga. App. 33 (3) ( 179 S.E.2d 283) (1970). 2.

Moreover, contrary to appellant's assertions on appeal, the evidence was such as to authorize a charge on the principles of comparative negligence. See generally Powers v. Pate, 107 Ga. App. 25, 27 (1) ( 129 S.E.2d 193) (1962); Davis v. Hammock, 123 Ga. App. 33, 35 (3) ( 179 S.E.2d 283) (1970); Southern States, Inc. v. Thomason, 128 Ga. App. 667, 670 ( 197 S.E.2d 429) (1973); Queen v. Bair, 137 Ga. App. 30 (1) ( 223 S.E.2d 8) (1975). "When the rule concerning comparative negligence is involved in a case, the verdict of the jury cannot be set aside on the ground that the amount of the damages awarded is inadequate ([cits.]) . . ."

However, since it is inferable that the decedent also may have been negligent, comparative negligence should also have been charged. Compare, Davis v. Hammock, 123 Ga. App. 33 (3) ( 179 S.E.2d 283). 4. The remaining enumerations are either mooted by the foregoing findings, are not meritorious or are not likely to recur in the event of another trial.

See in this connection Tifton Corp. v. Decatur Federal Savings c. Assn., 136 Ga. App. 710 (3) ( 222 S.E.2d 115); American Oil Co. v. Floyd, 136 Ga. App. 804, 805 (3) ( 222 S.E.2d 208); American Service Co. v. Green, 146 Ga. App. 552, 554 ( 246 S.E.2d 735). Based upon the entire evidence before the court, the trial court did not err in charging on comparative negligence. Davis v. Hammock, 123 Ga. App. 33, 36 ( 179 S.E.2d 283); Poss v. Carlton Co., 122 Ga. App. 528, 530, supra. The evidence did not demand a judgment in favor of the plaintiff so as to require direction of a verdict as to liability.

Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Coxwell, 93 Ga. App. 159 (2) ( 91 S.E.2d 135). The charge as given embodied the principles of Code § 105-603; and since the evidence authorized a finding that Mrs. Queen failed to avoid the consequences of the defendant's act, failure to give the charges objected to would have been error. Davis v. Hammock, 123 Ga. App. 33 ( 179 S.E.2d 283). 2.