Sikes v. Wilson

10 Citing cases

  1. Hammond v. Paul

    249 Ga. 241 (Ga. 1982)   Cited 17 times

    It was not error to admit this testimony, as similar evidence of other witnesses was admitted without objection. Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga. App. 415 (2) ( 39 S.E.2d 902) (1946). The Hammonds also contend that the admission of this testimony violated the best evidence rule, codified at Code Ann. § 38-203.

  2. Goodlett v. Ray Label Corp.

    171 Ga. App. 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 13 times

    " (Of course, to this, the witness answered "yes.") Ray Label contends on appeal that, as the trial court ruled, the appellant invited the question and waived any objection to it, by earlier testifying to an opposite conclusion, i.e., that "ordinarily an officer and director of a corporation would not be liable for the debts of the corporation." ( Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga. App. 415 ( 39 S.E.2d 902) was cited for this proposition.) Waiver of objection might seem a logical rule in some cases but we fail to see why the appellee should be allowed to testify to incompetent, incorrect evidence merely because he earlier declined to object to the other party's equally incompetent (although in this case correct) evidence.

  3. Hyles v. Cockrill

    169 Ga. App. 132 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 37 times
    In Hyles, this Court held that the trial court correctly sustained an objection to an expert physician witness's testimony that the “ ‘recognized standard medical and surgical care would require you to inform a patient about the possible complications before you do it so that they may have a chance to make a choice whether they want to undergo the procedure’ ” on the grounds that it was an attempt to impermissibly put the issue of informed consent before the jury.

    ]" Hammond v. Paul, 249 Ga. 241, 242 ( 290 S.E.2d 54) (1982). See also Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga. App. 415 ( 39 S.E.2d 902) (1946). 6.

  4. Dual S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Webb

    227 S.E.2d 418 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 38 times

    In the light of the circumstances, the jury may not have been able to see and understand as clearly as the witness the matters sought to be shown, and it was not error, under the ruling and instruction of the court, to allow the witness to state his opinion." Accord, Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Stiles, 82 Ga. App. 254, 267 ( 60 S.E.2d 815); Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga. App. 415, 418 ( 39 S.E.2d 902). But see Robinson v. McClain, 123 Ga. App. 664, 665 ( 182 S.E.2d 157) and cits. The opinion testimony by this nonexpert witness was properly admitted under the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. Defendant contends the court erred in permitting Jerry Beyers, another lay witness, to reconstruct the point of impact of the collision.

  5. Burchfield v. Byers

    121 Ga. App. 152 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 4 times

    The court properly sustained the objection as the answer stricken was not in reply to any question asked, and counsel did not pursue it further by asking questions within the knowledge of the witness. The cases of Stenger v. Weller, 47 Ga. App. 863 (1) ( 171 S.E. 829); Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga. App. 415 (2) ( 39 S.E.2d 902); Royal Crown Bottling Co. of Gainesville v. Stiles, 82 Ga. App. 254 (4) ( 60 S.E.2d 815); Davidson v. State, 208 Ga. 834 ( 69 S.E.2d 757), are not applicable since this witness neither qualified as an expert nor was he questioned as to what he saw at the scene from which he could have formed the basis for an opinion as to where the impact occurred. The testimony he was attempting to give was as to where the "lick happened" without establishing the facts upon which he based an opinion.

  6. Wilson v. Harrell

    87 Ga. App. 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 18 times
    In Wilson v. Harrell, 87 Ga. App. 793 (75 S.E.2d 436) it is held among other things, just as we hold in this case, that ordinarily it is a question for the jury as to whether under factual circumstances revealed by the evidence the guest passenger is under the duty to take steps to prevent injury to which the negligence of his hosts exposes him, and just what measures he should employ in that behalf.

    These grounds of the motion are without merit for the reason that at least two other witnesses who were not qualified as experts and who were not eyewitnesses to the collision were permitted to testify without objection to substantially the same facts and draw the same conclusion. See Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga. App. 415, 418 (2) ( 39 S.E.2d 902). 16.

  7. Jackson v. Matlock

    74 S.E.2d 667 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 17 times
    In Jackson v. Matlock, 87 Ga. App. 593, 595 (4) (74 S.E.2d 667), it was held: "The trial court erred in charging that, if the jury should find that the plaintiff and the defendant were equally negligent, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover, without instructing the jury in connection therewith that the negligence of the plaintiff which would bar his recovery under such rule must have proximately contributed as a cause of the injury received by plaintiff."

    le, he observed the plaintiff's automobile coming over the hill "just flying," and applied his brakes, attempted to cut back in behind the other automobile, and skidded and finally stopped with the front end of his automobile slightly over the center line of the highway — the question as to whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the attempt of the defendant to pass another automobile traveling in the same direction as he was traveling, on the crest of a hill or at a point where his vision was obscured, was directly presented by the pleadings and the evidence, and the trial court erred in failing to charge substantially in the language of the Code, § 68-303 (d), even though not requested so to do, and the court erred in overruling the 4th and 5th grounds of the amended motion for a new trial complaining of such failure to charge. See, in this connection, Wells v. Steinek, 49 Ga. App. 482 (1) ( 176 S.E. 42); Camilla Cotton-Oil Co. v. Cawley, 52 Ga. App. 268 (4) ( 183 S.E. 134); Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga. App. 415 (1) ( 39 S.E.2d 902); Southern Ry. Co. v. Garland, 75 Ga. App. 98 (2) ( 41 S.E.2d 925). 2.

  8. Southern Railway Company v. Garland

    41 S.E.2d 925 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947)   Cited 3 times

    se of ordinary care, avoided the negligence of the plaintiff, as the law requires; and the court also charged in effect that the plaintiff could not recover if the negligence of the decedent was the sole proximate cause of the injury. But after carefully studying the evidence and the charge of the court, we find nowhere therein that the court charged substantially that the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover if the jury found that the sole proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of the operator of the car, Adams. This was error, and reversible error. Georgia Brokerage Co. v. Frazier, 11 Ga. App. 498 ( 75 S.E. 827); Freeman v. Nashville, Chattanooga c. Ry. Co., 120 Ga. 469 ( 47 S.E. 931); Henderson v. Maysville Guano Co., 15 Ga. App. 69 ( 82 S.E. 588); Henderson v. Murray, 42 Ga. App. 489 ( 156 S.E. 470); Evans v. Nail, 1 Ga. App. 42 ( 57 S.E. 1020); Russell v. Bayne, 45 Ga. App. 55 ( 163 S.E. 290); Atlanta Northern Ry. Co. v. Seals, 71 Ga. App. 475 ( 31 S.E.2d, 94); Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga. App. 416 ( 39 S.E.2d 902). These authorities, in our opinion, under the record of this case, require a reversal. The failure to charge was not cured by the charge that the negligence of Adams could not be imputed to the guest.

  9. Lee v. State

    556 P.2d 217 (Wyo. 1976)   Cited 5 times

    Respectable case authority exists for permitting a lay witness to express an opinion or conclusion such as the one complained of in this case. McPherson v. Martin, 234 Ala. 244, 174 So. 791 (1937); Madison v. State, 40 Ala. App. 62, 109 So.2d 749 (1958), cert. den. 268 Ala. 699, 109 So.2d 755 (1959); Jewel Tea Co. v. McCrary, 197 Ark. 294, 122 S.W.2d 534 (1938); Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga. App. 415, 39 S.E.2d 902 (1946); Weilbrenner v. Owens, 246 Iowa 580, 68 N.W.2d 293 (1955); Lambert v. Caronna, 206 N.C. 616, 175 S.E. 303 (1934); Duran v. Mueller, 79 Nev. 453, 386 P.2d 733 (1963). Modern theories of the law of evidence exemplified by Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Rule 56(1) of the Uniform Rules of Evidence lend credence to these cases, and manifest a bias in favor of admissibility.

  10. Sammons v. Webb

    71 S.E.2d 832 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952)   Cited 28 times

    Error in the admission of evidence is rendered harmless when similar uncontroverted evidence is admitted without objection. Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga. App. 415 (2) ( 39 S.E.2d, 902). These grounds are without merit. 6. Error is assigned in the fourth special ground on the exclusion of testimony by a witness for the defendant that he had on another occasion seen another take off and land from the same roadway, using the road as an air strip. It does not appear that the airplane concerning which the testimony was offered was the same type of plane, or that the conditions as to daylight, weather, and so on were at all similar. Where it is desired to use one thing, act or transaction in comparison with another to illustrate some condition, such as, in this case, safety, it is necessary that such conditions be substantially similar.