Following a motor vehicle accident, Cynthia Turner filed a negligence action against Patrick Masters and his employer, Georgia Plating, Inc.1 collectively, “Masters”. The trial court ordered the trial bifurcated on the issues of liability and damages. After the parties presented evidence regarding liability, the jury found in favor of Masters. The trial court thereafter entered judgment on the jury’s verdict and dismissed Turner’s action with prejudice. Turner argues on appeal that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that the trial court erred in denying her motions for directed verdict and judgment not withstanding the verdict “j.n.o.v.”. She further contends that the trial court erred in denying her requests for special seating arrangements and that the jury was biased against her. We find no reversible error and affirm. This Court will not disturb a judgment when there is any evidence to sustain it, in the absence of a material error of law. If the verdict is wholly without supporting evidence, it will be set aside, but where the evidence is in conflict and a properly instructed jury resolves the conflicts against the plaintiff, and that decision is approved by the trial judge and is supported by the evidence of record, this Court, in the absence of material errors of law, will affirm. Weathers v. Foote & Davies Transport Co. , 189 Ga. App. 134, 135 1 375 SE2d 97 1988. The relevant facts of the collision itself are largely undisputed. On the day in question, Masters, who had been a truck driver for over 30 years, was driving a tractor-trailer through Atlanta heading westbound on highway I-20. He was driving in the center lane when he observed Turner’s vehicle merge into the right hand lane of the interstate; one lane separated their vehicles at that time. Shortly thereafter, Masters testified that he slowed down, watched the front of his tractor-trailer, and repeatedly checked his mirrors in an effort to change lanes. Believing that he had a clear path of travel, Masters guided his tractor-trailer into the lane immediately to his right. As he was about half-way into the lane, he collided with the drivers-side rear of Turner’s vehicle, causing her vehicle to spin and strike the median wall. Masters told the responding officer that Turner’s vehicle was located in his blind spot at the time of the impact, resulting in his failure to see her prior to the collision. Turner contends that she suffered long-term injuries as a result of the accident.
Turner alleged in her lawsuit and argued at trial that her injuries were directly and proximately caused by Masters’s negligent driving, and further asserted that Masters was negligent per se in making an improper lane change in violation of OCGA § 40-6-123.2 She contended that she had been driving parallel to Masters in the lane immediately beside him when, suddenly and without warning, Masters changed lanes and struck her vehicle. Masters, on the other hand, argued that he had exercised reasonable care in slowing and checking his mirrors and his line of sight prior to changing lanes, and posited that perhaps he and Turner were attempting to merge into the same lane when they collided. The jury found in favor of Masters on the issue of liability, ending the litigation; the trial court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict.
