Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 24-3-4 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 24-3-4 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 24-3-4

TITLE 24 EVIDENCE

Section 3. Parol Evidence, 24-3-1 through 24-3-10.

ARTICLE 2 LEGISLATIVE FACTS; ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS

24-3-4. Circumstances surrounding execution of contracts.

The surrounding circumstances shall always be proper subjects of proof to aid in the construction of contracts.

(Code 1981, §24-3-4, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)

Law reviews.

- For article, "Supplementing Written Agreements: Restating the Parol Evidence Rule in Terms of Credibility and Relative Fault," see 34 Emory L.J. 93 (1985).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1863, § 3727, former Code 1868, § 3751, former Code 1873, § 3804, former Code 1882, § 3804, former Civil Code 1895, § 5205, former Civil Code 1910, § 5792, former Code 1933, § 38-505, and former O.C.G.A. § 24-6-4 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

When former statute applied.

- Former statute applied only if a contract was of doubtful meaning; but a plain and unambiguous contract cannot be contradicted by parol. Ward v. Campbell, 73 Ga. 97 (1884) (decided under former Code 1882, § 3804); Kellos v. Parker-Sharpe, Inc., 245 Ga. 130, 263 S.E.2d 138 (1980);(decided under former Code 1933, § 38-505).

Ambiguities are explainable by the surrounding circumstances. Armistead v. McGuire, 46 Ga. 232 (1872) (decided under former Code 1868, § 3751); National Manufacture & Stores Corp. v. Dekle, 48 Ga. App. 515, 173 S.E. 408 (1934);(decided under former Code 1933, § 38-505).

When the language of the written instrument may be fairly understood in more ways than one, it should be taken in the sense put upon it by the parties at the time of its execution, and the court will hear evidence as to the facts and surroundings. National Manufacture & Stores Corp. v. Dekle, 48 Ga. App. 515, 173 S.E. 408 (1934) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-505); Irwin v. Young, 212 Ga. 1, 90 S.E.2d 22 (1955);(decided under former Code 1933, § 38-505).

Circumstances accompanying making of note.

- Parol evidence was admissible to show the circumstances under which notes were made, and to explain the consideration and show the year in which the consideration appearing on the face of the notes was actually advanced. Anderson v. Brown, 72 Ga. 713 (1884) (decided under former Code 1882, § 3804); Camp v. Matthews, 143 Ga. 393, 85 S.E. 196 (1915);(decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5792).

Admissibility of parol evidence of site plan to show nonexistence of use restriction.

- In a land use restriction action, a trial court erred by failing to consider a 1997 site plan, which allowed the parties to seek to amend the use of the land at issue and future development of the land; therefore, the trial court erred in enjoining a developer from constructing condominium towers since no such use restriction existed. CPI Phipps, LLC v. 100 Park Ave. Partners, L.P., 288 Ga. App. 614, 654 S.E.2d 690 (2007), cert. denied, No. S08C0618, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 286 (Ga. 2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-6-4).

Improper admission.

- If surrounding circumstances were improperly admitted, it was harmless error since substantially the same facts had already been established by the evidence of the plaintiff. Wells v. Gress, 118 Ga. 566, 45 S.E. 418 (1903) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 5205).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 17A Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts, § 351 et seq. 29A Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, §§ 1112, 1150, 1151.

ALR.

- Parol evidence rule; right to show fraud in inducement or execution of written contract, 56 A.L.R. 13.

Competency of parol evidence to vary, contradict, or add to terms of ticket or token issued by carrier for transportation or accommodation of passenger, 62 A.L.R. 655.

"Contractual" consideration as regards parol evidence rule, 100 A.L.R. 17.

Admissibility of parol evidence to show that a bill or note was conditional, or given for a special purpose, 105 A.L.R. 1346.

Admissibility of subsequent declarations of settlor to aid interpretation of trust, 51 A.L.R.2d 820.

Admissibility of evidence of value or extent of decedent's estate in action against estate for reasonable value of services furnished decedent, 65 A.L.R.2d 945.

Admissibility of oral evidence to show that a writing was a sham agreement not intended to create legal relations, 71 A.L.R.2d 382.

Admissibility of parol evidence to connect signed and unsigned documents relied upon as memorandum to satisfy statute of frauds, 81 A.L.R.2d 991.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 24-3-4

Total Results: 11  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

State v. Almanza, 820 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 96 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 9, 2018 | 304 Ga. 553

...ng as the old one." (emphasis added) ). This case presents an unusual situation: Rule 803 (4) is materially identical both to Federal Rule 803 (4) and to the medical treatment and diagnosis hearsay exception under the old Evidence Code (former OCGA § 24-3-4 )....
...medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment[.] OCGA § 24-8-803 (4) ; see also former OCGA § 24-3-4 (same)....
Copy

Teal v. State, 647 S.E.2d 15 (Ga. 2007).

Cited 74 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 25, 2007 | 282 Ga. 319, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 1978

...At trial, a physician who treated appellant after his arrest for an injury to his finger testified that, when he asked appellant whether the injury had been inflicted by an animal or a human being, appellant told him appellant's girlfriend had inflicted the bite wound. Citing OCGA § 24-3-4, [5] appellant unsuccessfully sought to exclude the testimony of the physician repeating what appellant had told him, and contends on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony. Pretermitting the applicability of § 24-3-4 to these facts, the physician's testimony was admissible under OCGA § 24-3-34, the *23 trial court's alternate basis for admission of the testimony....
...ining what constitutes inevitable discovery, we are not bound to follow that court's judicial construction of the term "lawful means . . . possessed by police and . . . being actively pursued prior to the occurrence of the illegal conduct." [5] OCGA § 24-3-4 states, "Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing ....
Copy

State v. Butler, 349 S.E.2d 684 (Ga. 1986).

Cited 64 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 29, 1986 | 256 Ga. 448

...n those accused of child molestation. [5] I am authorized to state that Justice Weltner and Justice Bell join in this dissent. NOTES [1] Although not critical to this opinion, the trial court's exclusion of the child's statements was erroneous. OCGA § 24-3-4 provides that "[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof...
...al diagnosis. Johnson v. State, 149 Ga. App. 544 (5) (254 SE2d 757) (1979). [2] Judge McMurray with Judge Beasley joining dissented saying that medical opinions are generally partly based on statements by the patient and are admissible as such. OCGA § 24-3-4....
Copy

S. Ry. Co. v. Lawson, 353 S.E.2d 491 (Ga. 1987).

Cited 52 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 12, 1987 | 256 Ga. 798

...Butcher stated several times that the Lawsons were suffering from great pain, grief and stress when he met with them approximately one year after the death of their son. Southern contends the testimony was based on comments made to the psychologist by the Lawsons and was inadmissible hearsay. However, OCGA § 24-3-4 provides: "Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof *802 i...
Copy

Howard v. State, 403 S.E.2d 204 (Ga. 1991).

Cited 51 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 11, 1991 | 261 Ga. 251

...Howard's sole enumeration of error on appeal is that Dr. Cowart's testimony about the victim's statements concerning the circumstances of the shooting should have been excluded as hearsay. We agree. The State urges that Dr. Cowart's testimony falls under the statutory hearsay exception of OCGA § 24-3-4....
Copy

Hester v. State, 659 S.E.2d 600 (Ga. 2008).

Cited 32 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 31, 2008 | 283 Ga. 367, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 1099

..."Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing . . . the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment" have long been admissible under OCGA § 24-3-4, and "continue to be admissible even after Crawford....
Copy

Schofield v. Gulley, 614 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. 2005).

Cited 30 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 6, 2005 | 279 Ga. 413, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 1773

...According to the medical record, Gulley stated that his injury was sustained while "pulling a lady back in a window" who was "trying to jump." Pretermitting whether this statement would have been admissible as one made for medical diagnosis or treatment pursuant to OCGA § 24-3-4 or as hearsay which is sufficiently reliable to be admitted in the sentencing phase in contravention of the general rules of evidence, we note that the medical record at the very least showed that Gulley was present at the hospital and was injured....
...704, 714-715(12), 532 S.E.2d 677 (2000) (discussing the procedure for the admission of reliable hearsay in the sentencing phase); Howard v. State, 261 Ga. 251, 403 S.E.2d 204 (1991) (holding that a patient's hearsay declaration in a medical record was inadmissible under OCGA § 24-3-4 because it was not *743 "reasonably pertinent" to the declarant's diagnosis and treatment)....
Copy

Black v. State, 410 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. 1991).

Cited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Dec 4, 1991 | 261 Ga. 791

...66(2), 295 S.E.2d 727 (1982). 14. The defendant has failed to show that error, if any, in the exclusion of a written memorandum submitted by attorney Harvey to the state's psychologist was harmful, where the psychologist did not testify at trial, see OCGA § 24-3-4, and where it is not clear that the memorandum was offered as a prior consistent statement by Mr....
Copy

Neuman v. State, 297 Ga. 501 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 15, 2015 | 773 S.E.2d 716

...Neuman intended for his expert witness to state that she based her opinion in part on statements that Neuman’s wife made to Dr. Warsaw, which Dr. Warsaw then recorded in his files. Neuman contends that the statements were not hearsay because they were made for medical diagnosis or treatment, see former OCGA § 24-3-4,12 and even if they were hearsay, his expert may rely on hearsay to form the basis for her opinions....
Copy

State v. Almanza, 304 Ga. 553 (Ga. 2018).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 9, 2018

...r past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment[.] OCGA § 24-8-803 (4); see also former OCGA § 24-3-4 (same)....

Neuman v. State (Ga. 2015).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 15, 2015

...on statements that Neuman’s wife made to Dr. Warsaw, which Dr. Warsaw then recorded in his files. Neuman contends that the statements were not hearsay because they were made for medical diagnosis or treatment, see former OCGA § 24-3-4,12 and even if they were hearsay, his expert may rely on hearsay to form the basis for her opinions....