Linda and Amber Lott collectively “Lott” appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion for new trial. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow Lott to cross-examine defendant Hatcher on certain allegations made in his answer and pre-trial order. We conclude there was no error and affirm. This case arose as the result of an automobile accident in which cars driven by Linda Lott and Hatcher collided at an intersection. Lott sued Hatcher, claiming she had a green light and Hatcher failed to stop at a red light. The jury found in favor of Hatcher and the court denied Lott’s motion for new trial. This appeal followed.
Lott argues on appeal that the following language in Hatcher’s answer and pre-trial order is inconsistent with his testimony at trial: The negligence of Plaintiff Linda Lott, at all times material and pertinent hereto, was equal to or exceeded that alleged against Defendant, any negligence of Defendant being specifically denied. . . . Plaintiff Linda Lott, through the exercise of ordinary care, could have avoided the consequences of Defendant’s negligence, any negligence being specifically denied. . . . Plaintiffs had full knowledge of the circumstances of which they complain and voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of any alleged damages; therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover from Defendant. . . . The operator of the vehicle in which Plaintiff Amber Lott was a passenger at the time of the incident at issue in this litigation had the last clear chance to avoid the occurrence and failed to exercise ordinary care. . . . Plaintiff Linda Lott had the last clear chance to avoid the occurrence at issue in this litigation and failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety. Lott claims that all of the above defenses are inconsistent with Hatcher’s single contention at trial that he was certain he had a green light when he entered the intersection. She contends that because of this inconsistency, it was error for the trial court not to allow her to cross-examine Hatcher on the above pleadings.
