Laney v. Blackburn

• Citation: 144 So. 126,25 Ala.App. 248
• Decision Date: 01 November 1932
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 866.
• Parties: LANEY v. BLACKBURN.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

144 So. 126

25 Ala.App. 248

LANEY v. BLACKBURN.

7 Div. 866.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

November 1, 1932

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.

Action for damages by Robert L. Blackburn against Z. D. Laney, Sr. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Hugh Reed, of Center, for appellant.

McCord & McCord, of Gadsden, and Irby A Keener, of Center, for appellee.

BRICKEN P.J.

Appellee Blackburn, sued the appellant, Laney, Sr., in the circuit court of Cherokee county to recover damages, to his (appellee's) automobile, which it is claimed was proximately caused by the son of appellant, in and about the operation of an automobile, which was the property of appellant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee and fixed his damages in the sum of $250. Motion for a new trial was overruled, and appellant prosecutes this appeal to review certain rulings of the trial court. Count 1 of the complaint, upon which the case was tried, is as follows "The Plaintiff claims of the Defendant, Z. D. Laney, Sr., three hundred dollars, damages, for that, heretofore, to-wit; on or about the 28th day of September, 1930 the Defendant did own and possess a Ford Automobile which he did then loan to his son Hill Laney, and did then negligently permit and allow the said Hill Laney to take and drive the same for his own personal pleasure and entertainment, and for personal business of the said Hill Laney, and Plaintiff avers that the said Hill Laney was wholly incompetent and unfit to drive said automobile, as was then well known to the said Defendant; that on said day and on said occasion the said Hill Laney being so possessed of said automobile, and in sole control of its operation did so carelessly, negligently and improperly operate said automobile at a point on the Round Mountain and Cedar Bluff Public Road about one and one-half miles west of the town of Cedar Bluff, Alabama, that he caused Defendant's said automobile to collide with, run into, against, or over the Ford Automobile of plaintiff's, ruining and crushing two fenders, a running board, crushing and breaking two wheels, bursting and tearing two tire and two tubes, breaking an axle, bursting the motor and otherwise bruising and damaging plaintiff's said automobile, all as the plaintiff avers, as the proximate result of the said defendant's negligence and the concurring negligence and incompetency of the said Hill Laney, as aforesaid, to the damage of the plaintiff in the said sum of Three Hundred Dollars as aforesaid, wherefore the plaintiff sues."

The foregoing count, in our opinion, was sufficient, and the demurrers interposed thereto were properly overruled. Rush v. McDonnell et al., 214 Ala. 47, 106 So. 175.

The testimony of Hill Laney, a witness for defendant, was sufficient to authorize the jury to infer or find that he had borrowed the automobile, from his father, which he was operating at the time the collision with appellee's car occurred, and that his father knew he was a reckless, incompetent driver. The other evidence in the case made it a question for the jury as to whether Hill Laney was negligent on that occasion, and whether his negligence proximately caused the damage complained of. Hence there was no error in refusing the general affirmative charge requested in writing by the appellant.

There was no error in the ruling by the court below that properly qualified witnesses might testify as a fact that Hill Laney was "a wild and reckless driver." The Supreme Court of this state has heretofore held that a witness...