Birmingham Stove Range Co. v. Vanderford

65 Citing cases

  1. Robinson v. Morrison

    133 So. 2d 230 (Ala. 1961)   Cited 26 times

    In order for a witness to testify as to visibility from one point to another he must make his observation from the same position and under the same conditions as the occurrence in question. Birmingham Stove Range Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 590, p. 442. It is not error to charge the jury with regard to the reasonable satisfaction of one or more jurors as to plaintiff's right to recover.

  2. Railway Express Co. v. Real

    45 So. 2d 306 (Ala. 1950)   Cited 12 times

    One complaining of injury suffered at the hands of another but whose own inattention, recklessness or carelessness has contributed proximately to his injury is barred by such want of care from recovery therefor. 38 Am.Jur., Negligence, §§ 174-190; 45 C.J., Negligence, §§ 500-509; Prosser on Torts, 1941; Mackintosh Co. v. Wells, 218 Ala. 260, 118 So. 276; Heffelfinger v. Lane, 239 Ala. 659, 196 So. 720; Pollard v. Rogers, 234 Ala. 92, 173 So. 881; Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Word, 200 Ala. 221, 75 So. 979; Sprinkle v. St. Louis F. R. Co., 215 Ala. 191, 110 So. 137; Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Terrell, 221 Ala. 454, 129 So. 20; Birmingham Stove Range Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; Republic Iron Steel Co. v. Fuller, 6 Ala. App. 448, 60 So. 475. The verdict of the jury is excessive. Woodward Iron Co. v. Burges, 219 Ala. 136, 121 So. 399; City of Birmingham v. Levens, 241 Ala. 47, 200 So. 888; City of Birmingham v. Smith, 231 Ala. 95, 163 So. 611. Taylor, Higgins, Koenig Windham and J. Howard Perdue, Jr., of Birmingham, for appellee.

  3. Smith v. Tripp

    20 So. 2d 870 (Ala. 1945)   Cited 22 times

    Count one sufficiently states a cause of action in simple negligence, and is good as against demurrer interposed. Graham v. Werfel, 229 Ala. 385, 157 So. 201; Birmingham Stove Range Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; Strickland v. Davis, 221 Ala. 247, 128 So. 233; Burns v. Bythwood, 236 Ala. 639, 184 So. 349; Harden, Inc. v. Harden, 29 Ala. App. 411, 197 So. 94. Evidence that vehicle in which intestate was riding left road and hit cables does not establish an independent agency intervening, since it was stimulated as a proximate consequence of defendants' wrongful conduct. Jones Son v. Lair, 245 Ala. 441, 17 So.2d 577.

  4. Tindell v. Guy

    10 So. 2d 862 (Ala. 1942)   Cited 20 times

    Holman v. Brady, 241 Ala. 487, 3 So.2d 30. A count in simple negligence embraces subsequent negligence. Birmingham Stove Range Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334. A violation of statutory rules of the road constitutes negligence per se. Greer v. Marriott, supra. All of the testimony of a witness may be disregarded if the jury is reasonably satisfied that any material part thereof is wilfully false. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Frazier, 93 Ala. 45, 9 So. 303, 30 Am.St.Rep. 28. To establish a plea of contributory negligence, the testimony must reasonably satisfy the jury that the complaining party was negligent and that his negligence was the concurring proximate cause of the injury complained of. Louisville N. R. Co. v. Maddox, 236 Ala. 594, 183 So. 849, 118 A.L.R. 1318; Hayes v. Alabama Power Co., 239 Ala. 207, 194 So. 505; Preston v. La Salle Apartments, 241 Ala. 540, 3 So.2d 411.

  5. Crotwell v. Cowan

    240 Ala. 119 (Ala. 1940)   Cited 17 times

    Each count of the complaint is in trespass against defendant Crotwell and in case against defendant Daniel. Plaintiff may not combine two causes of action in the same count. 1 C.J. pp. 999-1002, § 126; Code 1923, § 9467; 63 C.J. 886, § 1A; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Abernathy, 197 Ala. 512, 73 So. 103; So. R. Co. v. Hanby, 166 Ala. 641, 52 So. 334. Defendants were entitled to the affirmative charge or to have the verdict set aside on motion for new trial. So. R. Co. v. Harrington, 166 Ala. 630, 52 So. 57, 139 Am.St.Rep. 59; Birmingham Stove R. Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; Jones v. Ala. Min. R. Co., 107 Ala. 400, 18 So. 30. Charge 17 states a correct proposition of law, and its refusal was prejudicial error. Ala. Highway Code, Gen.Acts 1927, pp. 348, 372, § 64A; Greer v. Marriott, 27 Ala. App. 108, 167 So. 597.

  6. McPherson v. Martin

    174 So. 791 (Ala. 1937)   Cited 23 times

    A witness, who is not an expert or properly qualified, should not be permitted to express conclusion or opinions from a given state of facts or circumstances, but should give the details, circumstances of facts, and leave the reasonable inferences therefrom for determinaton by the court or jury trying the issue. Birmingham S. R. Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; Hodges v. Wells, 226 Ala. 558, 147 So. 672; Jackson v. Vaughn, 204 Ala. 543, 86 So. 469. The general charge should not be given where there is evidence which reasonably affords an inference adverse to the right of recovery by the party asking the charge, or from which the jury might draw an inference adverse to such party. It is only where the facts are such that all reasonable men must draw the same conclusion from them that the question of negligence is one of law for the court.

  7. McQueen v. Jones

    145 So. 440 (Ala. 1932)   Cited 18 times

    In an action based on negligence of the defendant, where the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict against defendant, the trial court should not refuse the affirmative charge requested in writing by defendant. 42 Cyc. 1002; 27 A.L.R. 1197; Martin v. Cazedessus, 15 La. App. 100, 130 So. 129, 130; A. G. S. R. Co. v. Molette, 207 Ala. 624, 93 So. 644; Uhl v. Fertig, 56 Cal.App. 718, 206 P. 467; Payne v. Shotwell, 257 U.S. 653, 42 S.Ct. 94, 66 L.Ed. 418; LaGoy v. Dir.-Gen., 231 N.Y. 191, 131 N.E. 886; B'ham, etc., Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334. S. F. Hobbs, of Selma, for appellee.

  8. Faulkner v. Gilchrist

    143 So. 803 (Ala. 1932)   Cited 23 times

    Godfrey v. Vinson, supra; Cannon v. Scarborough, 223 Ala. 674, 137 So. 900; Dozier v. Woods, 190 Ala. 279, 67 So. 283. And on the issue of subsequent negligence. Birmingham S. R. Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; Norwood Transp. Co. v. Bickell, 207 Ala. 232, 92 So. 464; Ward v. Meadows, 205 Ala. 432, 88 So. 427; Ala. G. S. R. Co. v. McWhorter, 156 Ala. 269, 47 So. 84. It was competent for the defendant to show, if he could, that plaintiff's intestate was intoxicated, but the conclusion as to whether he could safely drive an automobile or was in condition to drive an automobile or was in condition to go on the trip, was a conclusion for the jury to draw. James v. State, 193 Ala. 55, 69 So. 569, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 119; White v. State, 103 Ala. 72, 16 So. 63. The case went to the jury on wanton count as well as the simple and subsequent negligence counts.

  9. Acme Machine Welding Co. v. Home Industry Works

    223 Ala. 248 (Ala. 1931)   Cited 3 times

    The question to plaintiff's witness, "What is the amount he is indebted to you in?" was objectionable as invading the province of the jury, or seeking to draw inferences of fact for the jury. Birmingham, S. R. Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; Arnold Co. v. Gibson, 216 Ala. 314, 113 So. 25; Woodmen of the World v. Alford, 206 Ala. 18, 89 So. 528; Dersis v. Dersis, 210 Ala. 308, 98 So. 27; Standard Coop. Co. v. Dearman, 204 Ala. 553, 86 So. 537; Miller v. Whittington, 202 Ala. 406, 80 So. 499; Councill v. Mayhew, 172 Ala. 295, 55 So. 314; Walker v. Walker's Ex'r, 34 Ala. 469; Fid. Dep. Co. v. Adkins, 222 Ala. 17, 130 So. 552; Bryson v. Phelps, 220 Ala. 389, 125 So. 798; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Faulkner, 217 Ala. 82, 114 So. 686; McCullar v. Williams, 217 Ala. 278, 116 So. 137; Lewis Werner Sawmill Co. v. Vinson Bolton, 220 Ala. 210, 124 So. 420; Mobile, J. K. C. R. Co. v. Hawkins, 163 Ala. 565, 51 So. 37; Clark Barker v. Eufaula Brick Works, 205 Ala. 545, 88 So. 669; Scharnagel v. Furst, 215 Ala. 528, 112 So. 102; Brandon v. Progress Dist. Co., 167 Ala. 365, 52 So. 640; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Landers, 135 Ala. 504, 33 So. 482; 22 C. J. 485; Martin on Cir. Proc. §§ 56, 262. A witness not shown to have personal kn

  10. Penton v. Penton

    223 Ala. 282 (Ala. 1931)   Cited 32 times
    Construing Ala. Code tit. 34, § 72

    The witness should testify to the facts and circumstances and let the jury form the opinion and draw the conclusion. Birmingham Stove R. Co. v. Vanderford, 217 Ala. 342, 116 So. 334; Spooney v. State, 217 Ala. 219, 115 So. 308; Nicktovich v. Olympic Motor Tr. Co., 150 Wn. 278, 272 P. 736; Norfolk S. R. Co. v. Banks, 141 Va. 715, 126 S.E. 662; Fowler-Flemister Coal Co. v. Evans, 20 Ga. App. 200, 92 S.E. 1010; Anders v. Wallace, 17 Ala. App. 154, 82 So. 644; Taylor v. Lewis, 206 Ala. 338, 89 So. 581; Alabama Power Co. v. Armour, 207 Ala. 15, 92 So. 111; Birmingham R. E. Co. v. Jackson, 136 Ala. 279, 34 So. 994. A statute giving to the wife the right to sue alone does not create any new cause of action.