"I charge you, gentlemen, that if you find that plaintiff was injured solely by reason of his own negligence he cannot recover." These instructions were proper and sufficiently informed the jury as to the applicable law respecting the duty of care devolving upon the respective parties under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. It would not have been proper for the trial judge to have charged without qualification that a duty devolved upon the plaintiff of exercising ordinary care. Plaspohl v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 87 Ga. App. 506, 508 (2) ( 74 S.E.2d 491). This ground of the motion shows no error. 2.

NICHOLS, Justice. In Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. McDonald, 103 Ga. App. 328, 331 ( 119 S.E.2d 356), a decision in which the whole court (seven judges at that time) participated, it was held that the failure to give a charge without request similar to the one here requested was not error and that "It would not have been proper for the trial judge to have charged without qualification that a duty devolved upon the plaintiff of exercising ordinary care. Plaspohl v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 87 Ga. App. 506, 508 (2) ( 74 S.E.2d 491)." While dissents were filed upon other grounds, the decision of the Court of Appeals was unanimous upon this point.

The effect of charging defendant's request 5 and also plaintiff's request 6 left the jury in a quandary as to whether or not the certificate of title to the "Super Bee" was required to be transferred from Charlie to Poole, and they were thus in no position to determine who the owner of the car was for purposes of the "owner present" doctrine. "`[A] charge containing two distinct propositions conflicting the one with the other is calculated to leave the jury in such a confused condition of mind that they can not render an intelligible verdict, and requires the grant of a new trial.' Plaspohl v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 87 Ga. App. 506, 508 ( 74 S.E.2d 491)." State Hwy. Dept. v. Stewart, 104 Ga. App. 178, 183 ( 121 S.E.2d 278).

" Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Augusta Brokerage Co., 2 Ga. App. 511, 513 ( 58 S.E. 904). And where a "slip of the tongue" occurs, unless the true meaning is so palpable as to be clearly understood by the jury, a reversal is required. Plaspohl v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 87 Ga. App. 506 (1) ( 74 S.E.2d 491). For all of the foregoing, I am quite convinced that my esteemed colleagues of the majority are in serious error in affirming this unwarranted language by the trial judge in the presence of the jury, and I dissent.

Charging the jury with two distinct standards of conduct, one conflicting with the other, is confusing and requires reversal. Morris v. Warlick, 118 Ga. 421 (2) ( 45 S.E. 407); Plaspohl v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 87 Ga. App. 506 ( 74 S.E.2d 491). 2. It was also error for the court to charge on the provisions of Code Ann. § 68-1646 which provides that a vehicle shall not be started which is stopped, standing, or parked until movement can be made with reasonable safety.

A charge containing two distinct propositions, conflicting one with the other, is calculated to leave the jury in such a confused condition of mind that the jury cannot render an intelligible verdict and requires the grant of a new trial. Plaspohl v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 87 Ga. App. 506, 508 ( 74 S.E.2d 491); Tietjen v. Meldrim, 169 Ga. 678 (2c) ( 151 S.E. 349); Moreland v. Word, 209 Ga. 463 (7) ( 74 S.E.2d 82). For this reason the judgment must be reversed. Judgment reversed. Hall, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

The jury should not be left to decide between conflicting propositions contained in the court's charge, and where in instructing the jury the judge gives them an incorrect instruction it is not sufficient that he thereafter, without expressly withdrawing the incorrect charge, merely charges them correctly on the same proposition. Savannah Elec. Co. v. McClelland, 128 Ga. 87 (2) ( 57 S.E. 91); Citizens c. Nat. Bank v. Kontz, 185 Ga. 131, 146 ( 194 S.E. 536). A charge which thus contains two distinct statements, conflicting one with the other, is calculated to leave the jury in such a confused condition of mind that they cannot render an intelligent verdict. Tietjen v. Meldrim, 169 Ga. 678 (2), 696 ( 151 S.E. 349); Plaspohl v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 87 Ga. App. 506, 508 (2) ( 74 S.E.2d 491) Such a charge requires the grant of a new trial. Even if it be said, however, that the grant of a new trial is not demanded in such circumstances, nevertheless, where the trial judge grants a new trial expressly on a ground of the motion complaining of such a charge, his judgment in this regard ought to be affirmed unless the record clearly, unmistakably, and unequivocally demonstrates that the error contained in the charge was harmless.

See also Sutton v. State Highway Dept., 103 Ga. App. 29 ( 118 S.E.2d 285). The fact that the court did in the first instance charge correctly on the measure of damages does not render this error harmless, for "a charge containing two distinct propositions conflicting the one with the other is calculated to leave the jury in such a confused condition of mind that they can not render an intelligible verdict, and requires the grant of a new trial." Plaspohl v. Atlantic C.L.R. Co., 87 Ga. App. 506, 508 ( 74 S.E.2d 491). The trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

on any theory raised solely by the defendant's statement unless he desires to do so ( Hardin v. State, 107 Ga. 718 (3) 33 S.E. 700; Gay v. State, 111 Ga. 648 (1) 36 S.E. 857), yet, if he undertakes to so charge with respect to the contentions of the defendant, he must charge them correctly and should fully and distinctly cover the theory so raised. Ragland v. State, 111 Ga. 211 (1) ( 36 S.E. 682); Richards v. State, 114 Ga. 834 (1) ( 40 S.E. 1001); Jones v. State, 207 Ga. 379 (1) ( 62 S.E.2d 187). Furthermore, an erroneous instruction is not cured by a subsequent correct instruction to the jury unless the court expressly withdraws the erroneous instruction ( Rowe v. Spencer, 132 Ga. 426, 429 (5), 64 S.E. 468), and a charge which contains two distinct and conflicting propositions of law and which leaves the jury free to choose which of those propositions it will apply, is calculated to leave the jury in such a confused condition of mind that it cannot render an intelligible verdict. Plaspohl v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 87 Ga. App. 506 (2) ( 74 S.E.2d 491). Applying the foregoing principles of law to portions of the charge complained of in this case, they require a finding that the charge was error. The trial court erred in overruling the first and second special grounds of the motion for new trial.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. See Plaspohl v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 87 Ga. App. 506 ( 74 S.E.2d 491). On the re-trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $15,000. The defendant made a motion for new trial and amended it by the addition of two special grounds. The court denied the motion and the exception here is to that ruling.