![]() ![]() Any error in relying on this testimony was harmless since Morris, Hatchett and the other eyewitness also identified the bus as a MARTA bus. MARTA also argues that the trial court erred in relying on the deposition testimony of one of the eyewitnesses who identified the bus as a MARTA bus because the witness only learned that Atlanta municipal buses were called MARTA busses after the accident. 4 (ii) Eyewitness’s Deposition Testimony. Accordingly, the supervisor’s statement was properly admitted. Pursuant to the new Evidence Code, which went into effect in January 2013, almost two years before the trial in this case, “if a party does not properly object to hearsay, the objection shall be deemed waived, and the hearsay evidence shall be legal evidence and admissible.” OCGA § 24-8-802. ![]() MARTA did not object to Morris’s testimony at trial. MARTA argues that the trial court erred in relying on Morris’s hearsay statement that, after she described the driver’s appearance and clothing to the MARTA supervisor who responded to the scene, the supervisor told her that all MARTA bus drivers wear white shirts and black pants. (a) As an initial matter, MARTA argues that the trial court erred in relying on hearsay testimony in denying its motion for a directed verdict. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cumberland Contractors, Inc. However, we review questions of law de novo. On appeal from the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing 3 the motion, and the standard of review is whether there is any evidence to support the jury’s verdict. MARTA contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying its motion for directed verdict because the plaintiffs failed to prove vicarious liability and negligence. That witness also observed the MARTA bus sideswipe Morris’s vehicle. ![]() Another witness to the accident was not available at trial, but his previous statement to a MARTA claims representative was read at trial and the videotape of his deposition was played for the jury. The bus had MARTA markings, including three colored stripes. At trial, a passerby, who rode MARTA everyday, testified that she was walking on Peachtree Street when she heard a crash and then saw a MARTA bus drive by Morris’s vehicle and tear off the front bumper. The officer saw no evidence that Morris was intoxicated and administered no field sobriety tests. Eventually, an Atlanta Police Department officer arrived and completed an investigation. MARTA police arrived on the scene and, about 45 minutes after the accident, a MARTA supervisor arrived. Both Hatchett and Morris sustained injuries and Morris’s car was damaged. At the bus stop, 1 See Double View Ventures, LLC v. The bus pulled over into the right-hand lane and then stopped at the MARTA bus stop at the next corner. The MARTA bus veered into the right lane and sideswiped Morris’s vehicle, causing it to hit the curb. When the light turned green, both Morris and the MARTA bus began to proceed through the light. The bus was driven by a man wearing a white shirt and black pants, and a MARTA supervisor informed Morris that all MARTA bus drivers wear white shirts and black pants. There is only one MARTA corporation and only MARTA bus operators are permitted to drive MARTA buses. The bus had “MARTA” and “Five Points” written on the side of it, and there is a MARTA bus route that travels on Peachtree Street from Lenox Station to Five Points. ![]() Morris was driving south on Peachtree Street when she stopped at a red light at the 14th Street intersection. After dinner, around 10:30 p.m., they drove back toward the hotel. They left the hotel and had dinner at a restaurant. Construed in favor of the verdict,1 the evidence shows that on November 19, 2011, Morris and Hatchett arrived in Atlanta and checked into their hotel on Peachtree Street. MARTA appeals, contending that (1) the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict, (2) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the plaintiffs’ negligence, and (3) the jury was not authorized to award attorney fees. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. Kimberly Morris and Marlon Hatchett filed a personal injury suit against the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (“MARTA”), alleging that it was vicariously liable for the negligence of an unidentified MARTA bus driver who struck their vehicle. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. NovemIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia A15A1609. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |