Under Alabama law, negligence of parent/custodian does not bar or reduce personal injury claim of the infant. Nunn v Whitworth, 545 So. 2d 766, 767 (1989); Bentley v Lawson, 191 So.2d 372, 376 (1966); Birmingham Elec. Co. v Kirkland, 118 So. 640, 643 (1928). Under Alabama law, test for assumption of the risk by an infant is at least as demanding as for contributory negligence.
"‘[A] party is entitled to proper jury instructions regarding the issues presented, and an incorrect or misleading charge may be the basis for the granting of a new trial.’ Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So. 2d 766, 767 (Ala. 1989). If an objection to a jury charge is properly preserved for review on appeal, this Court will ’look to the entirety of the trial court’s charge to see if there was reversible error.’
It is well settled that "an incorrect or misleading charge may be the basis for the granting of a new trial." Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So. 2d 766, 767 (Ala. 1989). Reversal of a judgment on the basis of the trial court's giving such an instruction, however, is warranted only when the error is prejudicial.
" ‘[a] party is entitled to proper jury instructions regarding the issues presented, and an incorrect or misleading charge may be the basis for the granting of a new trial.’ Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766, 767 (Ala. 1989). If an objection to a jury charge is properly preserved for review on appeal, this Court will ‘look to the entirety of the trial court's charge to see if there was reversible error.’
An incorrect, misleading, erroneous, or prejudicial charge may form the basis for granting a new trial. See, Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766 (Ala.1989). However, the refusal of a requested, written instruction, although a correct statement of the law, is not cause for reversal on appeal if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the trial court's oral charge.
An incorrect, misleading, erroneous, or prejudicial charge may form the basis for granting a new trial. See, Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766 (Ala. 1989). However, the refusal of a requested, written instruction, although a correct statement of the law, is not cause for reversal on appeal if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the trial court's oral charge.
An incorrect, misleading, erroneous, or prejudicial charge may form the basis for granting a new trial. See Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766 (Ala. 1989)."
An incorrect, misleading, erroneous, or prejudicial charge may form the basis for granting a new trial. See, Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766 (Ala. 1989). However, the refusal of a requested, written instruction, although a correct statement of the law, is not cause for reversal on appeal if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the trial court's oral charge.
Of course, "'[a] party is entitled to proper jury instructions regarding the issues presented, and an incorrect or misleading charge may be the basis of the granting of a new trial.'" H.R.H. Metals, Inc. v. Miller, 833 So.2d 18, 28 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766, 767 (Ala. 1989)). In other words, the remedy for a trial court's having given an improper jury instruction is a new trial, not a JML.
"A party is entitled to proper jury instructions regarding the issues presented, and an incorrect or misleading charge may be the basis of the granting of a new trial." Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766, 767 (Ala. 1989). However, "[r]eversal is warranted only when the error is considered to be prejudicial."