Davis v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth

Full title: DAVIS v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Mar 1, 1988

367 S.E.2d 885 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)

367 S.E.2d 885

Opinion

75706.

DECIDED MARCH 1, 1988. REHEARING DENIED MARCH 15, 1988.

Action for damages. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Jenrette.

Gordon L. Joyner, for appellant.

Clifford E. Hardwick IV, Debra C. Bracewell, for appellee.

CARLEY, Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff filed suit, alleging that he had been injured while a passenger on a bus operated by appellee-defendant. The case was submitted to the jury under a negligence theory and a no-fault theory. Appellant appeals from the judgment entered on the verdict for the appellee.

Appellant's only enumerations of error relate to the trial court's charge to the jury. The sole objection raised by appellant in the trial court was that the charge had been misleading, in that it had indicated to the jury that a finding of appellee's negligence was a prerequisite to a recovery by appellant on his no-fault claim. In the absence of substantial error harmful as a matter of law, appellate review of all other aspects of the charge has been waived. See generally OCGA § 5-5-24; Hamrick v. Wood, 175 Ga. App. 67 ( 332 S.E.2d 367) (1985).

The trial court was presented with the unenviable task of instructing the jury on two separate and distinct theories of recovery. Appellant apparently did not submit any written requests to charge so as to assist the court in formulating the charge. If it is evaluated from the prospective of hindsight and on the basis of isolated extracts, the charge that was given does not appear to be a model of clarity. However, a review of the charge in its entirely reveals that, as to the two theories of recovery, it was not misleading to the jury. Accordingly, the objection raised to the charge in the trial court is not sufficient to authorize reversal of the judgment entered on the verdict. See Mathis v. Mangum, 166 Ga. App. 415 ( 304 S.E.2d 520) (1983). See also Howell v. State, 157 Ga. App. 451 (6, 7) ( 278 S.E.2d 43) (1981). There being no substantial error as to any other portion of the charge as given, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Banke, P. J., and Benham, J., concur in the judgment only.

DECIDED MARCH 1, 1988 — REHEARING DENIED MARCH 15, 1988.