Powell v. Alan Young Homes Inc.

The trial court's error in excluding relevant evidence was harmless because the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In her suit for the wrongful death of her husband, Catherine Powell files this appeal following a jury verdict in favor of Alan Young Homes, Inc. AYH. She contends that the trial court erred by excluding her testimony at trial regarding conversations that she had with her husband prior to his death, and by allowing AYH to assert assumption of risk and contributory and comparative negligence as defenses at trial. We discern no reversible error and affirm.

Johnny Powell, a sales manager at AYH, was killed during an after-hours fish fry held at AYH on May 19, 1998. Several AYH employees, including the manager, testified that they purchased alcohol for the fish fry with their own money. There was no evidence that any corporate funds of AYH were used to provide alcohol at the fish fry. Cheryl Terrigino, a member of the AYH cleaning staff who attended the fish fry along with her husband and son, also brought additional alcohol. During the course of the evening, Mr. Powell, the manager, and Terrigino had several drinks. Terrigino left the party while she was intoxicated. Shortly before Terrigino left the party, however, the manager asked Mr. Powell to accompany him on a golf cart to drive around the AYH premises and to go to a nearby store for cigarettes. Mr. Powell got into the back seat of the golf cart, and the manager drove the cart onto the highway, where it was subsequently rear-ended by a truck owned and driven by Terrigino. The accident resulted in Mr. Powell’s death. Mrs. Powell sued AYH pursuant to OCGA § 51-1-40 b, alleging that AYH knowingly provided alcohol to Terrigino when Terrigino was noticeably intoxicated and likely to drive, which caused the accident that killed her husband.

Powell v. Alan Young Homes Inc.

The trial court's error in excluding relevant evidence was harmless because the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report