Summary
In Redwing, a personal injury suit against the plaintiff's employer, the trial court was found to have committed reversible error in refusing to admit pleadings filed by the plaintiff in a separate suit against another defendant for the same injury. The Alabama Court simply recognized the rule that prior pleadings that are inconsistent with present contentions may be introduced as an admission against interest.
Summary of this case from Spurlin v. General Motors CorpOpinion
SC 785.
March 13, 1975. Rehearing Denied April 10, 1975.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Mobile County, Hubert P. Robertson, J.
James D. Harris, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.
Generally, pleadings are admissible against a party as admissions whether the pleadings were filed in behalf of the party in another action or upon proof that the pleadings were drawn under the party's direction or with his assent. Cole v. L N R.R. Co., 267 Ala. 196, 100 So.2d 684. Where a question on its face calls for evidence which will be clearly relevant and competent and the witness appears to be qualified to testify from knowledge of the matter inquired about the sustaining of an objection thereto must be deemed erroneous and prima facie prejudicial, where there is no offer of further proof. Birmingham Ry., L P Co. v. Barrett, 179 Ala. 274, 60 So. 262; Huntsville Knitting Mill Co. v. Butner, 194 Ala. 317, 69 So. 960.
John Grow and Gary P. Alidor, Mobile, for appellee.
Court documents are not admissible in evidence against a party where such documents involve different issues, different parties and are not proved as required by statute. Code of Alabama, Title 7, (Recomp. 1958).
Plaintiff, Tommy Stone, sued his employer, Redwing Carriers, Inc., for personal injuries he received when he attempted to unload acid from Redwing's tank at a chemical company plant in Pensacola, Florida.
Redwing makes no point that the complaint did not allege facts which would show the inapplicability of the workmen's compensation laws. Therefore, we will not address that issue.
The complaint contained only a wanton count. After trial in Mobile County, a jury returned a verdict for $25,000 in plaintiff's favor. Redwing appeals and assigns several grounds of error. We consider only one which causes us to reverse and remand.
During the course of the trial, Redwing sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a complaint filed by Stone against Agrico Chemical Co., in which Stone claimed Agrico was negligent for failing to provide sufficient water at the site when Stone was unloading the acid. In other words, Redwing contends that Stone was claiming that Agrico's negligence proximately caused his injuries and at the same time claimed Redwing's negligence proximately caused his injuries.
Generally, pleadings are admissible against a party as admissions whether the pleadings were filed in behalf of the party in another action, or upon proof that the pleadings were drawn under the party's direction or with his consent. Cole v. Louisville Nashville R. R., 267 Ala. 196, 100 So.2d 684 (1957); Elder v. Rawls Sanitorium, 219 Ala. 298, 122 So. 41 (1929); McElroy Law of Evidence in Alabama, Vol. 2, § 181.01, p. 7. In the trial below, Stone's counsel stipulated that the exhibit Redwing sought to introduce was a copy of the suit which Stone filed against Agrico. It was relevant to show that plaintiff Stone had sued another company for the same alleged injuries for which he was suing Redwing.
The court's failure to permit the complaint to be put into evidence constitutes reversible error.
Other grounds of error are argued, but we will not discuss them. It is probable that any error which may have occurred will not occur if there is another trial.
Reversed and remanded.
HEFLIN, C. J., and MERRILL, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.