State Highway Department v. Hilliard

6 Citing cases

  1. Dent v. Memorial Hospital of Adel

    270 Ga. 316 (Ga. 1998)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that negligence in the decision of "[w]hether to use certain equipment at all, what type of equipment to use, and whether certain equipment should be available in a specific case" would amount to malpractice, but that "the failure to operate equipment correctly or in accordance with a doctor's instructions or to keep certain equipment on hand is only ordinary, not professional, negligence"

    The trial court's charge was in irreconcilable conflict and was never properly corrected, and by no reasoning are we able to say that this conflict was harmless. See Johnson v. State, 148 Ga. App. 702, 704(2) ( 252 S.E.2d 205) (1979); State Hwy. Dept. v. Hilliard, 112 Ga. App. 498, 499(1) ( 145 S.E.2d 824) (1965); Baxter v. State Hwy. Dept., 108 Ga. App. 324 ( 132 S.E.2d 863) (1963). The dissent opines that each criticism of the nursing staff's actions was an assertion of professional negligence and that the allegations of ordinary negligence relate only to the purported failure of the hospital to train the nurses, which could not have proximately caused the child's death apart from some failure of the nurses to meet the professional standard of care. Whether the negligence alleged by a plaintiff is ordinary negligence or professional malpractice is a question of law.

  2. Flexible Products v. Ervast

    284 Ga. App. 178 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under business judgment rule, "officers and directors thus are protected from liability for ordinary negligence . . . . "

    No curative charge was given, and we are unable to say that this conflict was harmless in the circumstances of this case. See Johnson v. State, 148 Ga. App. 702, 704 (2) ( 252 SE2d 205) (1979); State Hwy. Dept. v. Hilliard, 112 Ga. App. 498, 499 (1) ( 145 SE2d 824) (1965); Baxter v. State Hwy. Dept., 108 Ga. App. 324 ( 132 SE2d 863) (1963). That the jury charge was in conflict and confusion as to liability upon the advice of counsel, the grant of a new trial is required.

  3. Rizer v. Harris

    182 Ga. App. 31 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 8 times
    Applying OCGA ยง 44-9-40 in the context of an action seeking a prescriptive easement

    Where 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, the result cannot be held harmless and requires the grant of a new trial. See State Hwy. Dept. v. Hilliard, 112 Ga. App. 498, 499 (2) ( 145 S.E.2d 824) (1965); Srochi v. Kamensky, 121 Ga. App. 518, 525 (4d) ( 174 S.E.2d 263) (1970). For this reason the judgment must be reversed.

  4. Dept. of Transp. v. Katz

    169 Ga. App. 310 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 16 times
    In Katz the Court of Appeals stressed that since the DOT did not disturb the direct vehicular access existing from Katz's land to the abutting street, the DOT did not have to compensate the property owner for any damage which resulted from DOT's changing the traffic pattern from two-way to one-way traffic.

    [Cits.]" State Hwy. Dept. v. Hillard, 112 Ga. App. 498 (1) ( 145 S.E.2d 824) (1965). "Correct instructions as to the law become erroneous when they are not applicable to the evidence in the case on trial.

  5. Trust Co. of Columbus v. Kite

    294 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    [Cits.]" State Highway Dept. v. Hilliard, 112 Ga. App. 498, 499 ( 145 S.E.2d 824). 2.

  6. Wright v. Marta

    156 Ga. App. 704 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 4 times

    While it is conceivable that the jury reconciled the conflicting portions of the charge, appellees' contention that "the jury could only have understood that consequential damages and consequential benefits, including the prospective effect of the MARTA project, must be determined as of the date of the taking" is clearly wishful thinking. "The jury should not be left to decide between conflicts in the charge ..." Savannah Elec. Co. v. McClelland, 128 Ga. 87 (2) ( 57 S.E. 91) (1907); State Hwy. Dept. v. Hilliard, 112 Ga. App. 498, 499 ( 145 S.E.2d 824) (1965). 2.