From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mathis v. Copeland

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 15, 1976
228 S.E.2d 23 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)




DECIDED JUNE 15, 1976.

Action for damages. Bibb State Court. Before Judge Phillips.

Mullis, Reynolds, Marshall Horne, W. Carl Reynolds, Gerald S. Mullis, for appellant.

Harris, Watkins, Taylor Davis, David B. Higdon, for appellee.

Mathis was injured when the automobile in which he was a passenger collided with the one driven by Copeland. He sued and received a verdict of $600 for his injuries. The only issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine any damages as a result of loss of earnings.

The trial judge, who allowed unlimited direct examination of Mathis in an attempt to establish his earning capacity as a then unemployed but sometimes odd job laborer, correctly decided that his testimony gave no evidence from which the jury could ascertain, except by conjecture and speculation, a reasonable basis to determine lost wages. "Where a party sues for specific damages he has the burden of showing the amount of loss claimed in such a way that the jury may calculate the amount of loss from the data furnished and will not be placed in a position where an allowance of the loss is based on guesswork. [Cit.]" Studebaker Corp. v. Nail, 82 Ga. App. 779, 785 ( 62 S.E.2d 198).

The trial judge properly instructed the jury not to consider any loss in earnings should they find that Mathis was entitled to recover.

Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

SUBMITTED MAY 24, 1976 — DECIDED JUNE 15, 1976.

Summaries of

Mathis v. Copeland

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 15, 1976
228 S.E.2d 23 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Case details for

Mathis v. Copeland

Case Details


Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jun 15, 1976


228 S.E.2d 23 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
228 S.E.2d 23

Citing Cases

Beal v. Braunecker

Thus, if plaintiff had been unemployed and unable to establish his earning capacity, no recovery of damages…

Rodriguez-Densley v. United States

Such measure must be reasonably ascertained by the finder of fact and should not be based on conjecture,…