Alabama Power Co. v. Goodwin
| Decision Date | 18 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 402. |
| Citation | 210 Ala. 388,98 So. 124 |
| Parties | ALABAMA POWER CO. v. GOODWIN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1923.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; Woodson J. Martin, Judge.
Action for damages by W. P. Goodwin against the Alabama Power Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Dortch Allen & Dortch and Hood & Murphree, all of Gadsden, for appellant.
Goodhue & Goodhue, of Gadsden, for appellee.
The action is for damages, instituted by appellee, the husband of Dora Brindley Goodwin, to recover compensation for losses suffered by him in consequence of personal injuries inflicted upon his wife while a passenger on appellant's interurban railway line. The jury's verdict is for $5,000. The motion for new trial was overruled. The appeal from a judgment in favor of Mrs. Goodwin in her separate action is pending on submission here.
Only four propositions are urged for appellant as basis for the imputation of error in judgment under review. They will be considered in the order of their presentation.
It is insisted that the verdict is excessive; so when measured by the principles of law, undisputed in this cause, which allow the husband, as such, compensation for the loss or losses he as husband, sustains by reason of the wrongful injury of his wife. The elements and measure of damages in such circumstances are amply stated in Sou. Ry. Co. v Crowder, 135 Ala. 417, 33 So. 335; Ala. G. & A. Ry Co. v. Appleton, 171 Ala. 324, 54 So. 638, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1181; among others. Reiteration is not necessary at this time.
There was evidence which, if accredited by the jury, authorized the awarding of the amount stated in the verdict. There was evidence designed to show that the injury to plaintiff's wife was permanent; that one limb would always be from one to two inches shorter than the other; that her disability to move about might endure for years, if not for life; that her physical capacity to discharge household and other duties had already been long suspended and that such incapacity might continue for years, if not for life; and that the husband (the plaintiff) had, during the wife's more acute illness from her injuries, served, in a sense, as nurse to her. Further statement of evidence designed to show the character and extent of the deprivation occasioned the husband (plaintiff) by his wife's injuries is not necessary to justify the conclusion that error cannot be imputed to the trial court in overruling the ground of the motion for new trial questioning the amount of the verdict.
Twenty-six of the errors assigned refer to rulings of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Alabama Power Co. v. Goodwin
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Goodwin
...a passenger, resulting from a street car collision. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded. See, also, 98 So. 124. and Thomas, JJ., dissenting. Dortch, Allen & Dortch and O. R. Hood, all of Gadsden, for appellant. Goodhue & Lusk, of Gadsden, for appellee. SO......
- Orman v. Scharnagel
-
Waters v. Anthony, 6 Div. 783
...verdict was excessive, should be granted unless appellee remits the amount of his recovery from $5,000 to $3,500. See Alabama Power Co. v. Goodwin, 210 Ala. 388, 98 So. 124; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Chandler, 27 Ala. App. 563, 176 So. 321; Al DeMent Chevrolet Co. v. Wilson, 252 Ala. 662, ......