153 So. 235 (Ala. 1934), 6 Div. 240, City of Birmingham v. Martin

Docket Nº6 Div. 240.
Citation153 So. 235, 228 Ala. 318
Opinion JudgeTHOMAS, Justice.
Party NameCITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. MARTIN.
AttorneyW. J. Wynn and T. A. McFarland, both of Birmingham, for appellant. John W. Altman and Fred G. Koenig, both of Birmingham, for appellee.
Judge PanelANDERSON, C.J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
Case DateJanuary 18, 1934
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Page 235

153 So. 235 (Ala. 1934)

228 Ala. 318

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM

v.

MARTIN.

6 Div. 240.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 18, 1934

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1934.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Romaine Boyd, Judge.

Action for damages for personal injuries by Clara E. Martin against the City of Birmingham. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Page 236

W. J. Wynn and T. A. McFarland, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

John W. Altman and Fred G. Koenig, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

THOMAS, Justice.

The complaint was in one count for simple negligence. Defendant's demurrers were overruled and defendant filed its plea in short by consent.

The description of the place of the accident in the sworn claim was sufficient for the purpose of information to the city of the time and place of the accident-technical accuracy was not required of such sworn statement, only that the city be reasonably and fairly informed of the facts, as to the amount of damages and the location of the place of the injury, so that the city could intelligently investigate the allowance or the rejection of that claim. And this requirement was complied with. There was no error in overruling the demurrers to the complaint. City of Birmingham v. Mauzey, 214 Ala. 476, 108 So. 382; McKinnon v. City of Birmingham, 196 Ala. 56, 71 So. 463; Newman v. Mayor and Aldermen of Birmingham, 109 Ala. 630, 19 So. 902; Benton v. City of Montgomery, 200 Ala. 97, 75 So. 473; Grambs v. City of Birmingham, 202 Ala. 490, 80 So. 874; City of Bessemer v. Pope, 212 Ala. 16, 101 So. 648; Reid v. City of Mobile, 213 Ala. 321, 322, 104 So. 787.

Counsel next present for review the action of the trial court in refusing to give, at the written request of the defendant, the general affirmative charge. The rule as to such request need not be restated. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 40, 88 So. 135. There is evidence that the accident happened at the place indicated in the sworn claim and the complaint.

The appellant contends that it was due the general affirmative charge requested upon the further theory that plaintiff's injury follows, as a matter of law, as a direct result of the violation of a city ordinance (section 5935 (j), Birmingham Code of 1930, and Gen. Acts 1927, p. 375, § 71) forbidding the parking of a car in...

To continue reading

Request your trial