268 So.2d 837 (Ala.Civ.App. 1972), Civ. 13, Jackson v. Brown

Docket Nº:Civ. 13.
Citation:268 So.2d 837, 49 Ala.App. 55
Opinion Judge:HOLMES, Justice.
Party Name:Roland JACKSON v. Geneva BROWN.
Attorney:Bankhead, Petree & Savage, Jasper, for appellant., James E. Wilson, Jasper, for appellee.
Case Date:November 01, 1972
Court:Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 837

268 So.2d 837 (Ala.Civ.App. 1972)

49 Ala.App. 55

Roland JACKSON

v.

Geneva BROWN.

Civ. 13.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 1, 1972

Page 838

[49 Ala.App. 56]

Page 839

Bankhead, Petree & Savage, Jasper, for appellant.

James E. Wilson, Jasper, for appellee.

HOLMES, Justice.

This is an appeal by appellant, Roland Jackson, from a judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Geneva Brown, against the appellant in the amount of $7,000.

The appellee filed suit in the Circuit Court of Walker County, Alabama, the complaint consisting of two counts. Count One claimed damages for personal injuries and property damage based on the appellant's alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Count Two alleged wanton conduct in the operation of a motor vehicle. The parties reached issue by a plea in short by consent and the case was submitted to the jury under Count One of the complaint, the court giving the general affirmative charge to Count Two.

The trial court overruled appellant's motion for new trial, and appellant assigned this ruling as error.

It is not necessary to the opinion to set out all the evidence, however the following is noted:

Appellee testified to the effect that she first saw appellant's car at a distance of three car lengths coming toward appellee on appellee's side of the road. Appellee stated she blew her horn and pulled over right and stopped; however, the front of appellant's automobile collided with the front of appellee's automobile. At the time of impact appellee's head hit the windshield and broke it. Appellee further testified that she had never been in an auto wreck before and her head and face had never been injured; that she received one cut on her face requiring thirty-six stitches and had two or three stitches taken in her left knee; that her right arm hurt and she suffered with her back; and that a couple of teeth were cracked.

Appellee was taken to the hospital immediately after the wreck, the hospital records being introduced into evidence without objection.

Appellee also stated she lost four weeks from her employment as a result of the wreck, and that she gave the job up after returning to work for two weeks because she was unable to do her work. During this period of time appellee went to a doctor several times and also went to an eye specialist for her left eye. Appellee stated she had headaches and that there was an area of numbness in the general area of the scar over her left eye and she further [49 Ala.App. 57] stated she was not able to do the housework that she could do before the wreck.

Appellee's further testimony was that her medical bills included $35 for one doctor, $60 plus for the hospital, and $30 for the eye specialist. She testified that she continued to have headaches resulting, in her opinion, from the wreck and had spent $300 or $400 for headache medicine in the past three and one-half years. Appellee further testified that in her opinion the market value of her car immediately before the accident was $1,300 to $1,350 and that the automobile was worth nothing immediately after the accident.

Page 840

Witnesses for appellee, an investigating police officer of the accident, and a passenger in the vehicle of the appellee at the time of the accident, testified to the effect that appellant was on appellee's side of the road when the accident occurred.

Appellant testified that when the accident occurred he was on the way to the store with his four grandchildren riding in the back seat. Appellant stated he saw two little children run across the road and behind a parked car located on his side of the road; that he pulled around the parked car while watching for the children; that when he looked ahead from looking toward the parked car, appellee's car was right in his face going, in his judgment, forty to fifty miles per hour; and that he was only going about twenty miles per hour. Appellant further stated that when he came around the parked car he did...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP