Alewine v. Southern Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 26 August 1988 |
Citation | 531 So.2d 315 |
Parties | Henry T. ALEWINE, individually and as administrator of the estate of Roxie Alewine, deceased v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, et al. 87-679. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
S. Shay Samples and Richard D. Stratton of Hogan, Smith, Alspaugh, Samples & Pratt, William R. Hovater, Birmingham, for appellant.
Steve A. Baccus and David K. Howard of Almon, McAlister, Ashe, Baccus & Tanner, Tuscumbia, for appellees.
Plaintiff Henry Alewine's automobile collided with a Southern Railway train. His wife Roxie, a passenger in his car, was killed; Henry was injured. He sued Southern Railway and other defendants, individually and as administrator of his wife's estate, and is appealing from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for the defendants.
The sole issue presented is whether the trial court erred to reversal by refusing one of the plaintiff's requested jury instructions. We affirm that portion of the judgment in favor of Southern Railway and against Henry Alewine, individually. We reverse that portion of the judgment in favor of Southern Railway et al. and against Henry Alewine as administrator of the estate of Roxie Alewine.
The defendants contend that the plaintiff failed to preserve this issue for review by not objecting with enough specificity to point out to the trial court its alleged error in refusing the charge.
The suit charged negligence on the part of the defendants and one of the defenses was contributory negligence on the part of the driver and the passenger.
At the conclusion of the trial court's oral charge to the jury, counsel for the plaintiff's lawyer made the following objection:
In addition to the charges specifically referred to by number in the plaintiff's objection, a charge numbered 26 had been requested. It stated:
"Negligence, if any, of a husband driving an automobile in which the wife was riding as a guest does not bar the wife's right to recover against a third party if the wife is otherwise entitled to recovery."
In its oral charge to the jury, the trial court made several references to the fact that a finding of contributory negligence on the part of Mr. Alewine would bar his right to recover against the defendants. The court had also instructed the jury that Mrs. Alewine, as a passenger in the automobile, had a duty to use reasonable care to avoid injury to herself. Nowhere in the court's oral charge is there any mention of how a finding that the driver was negligent would affect the passenger's right to recover. The plaintiff's requested charge number 26, which the court refused, contained a correct statement of the law on that issue.
The question is: Was the plaintiff's objection sufficient to call the deficiency to the trial court's attention? We hold that it was in this case. Contributory negligence was a major issue in the case. There was abundant evidence from which the jury could find contributory negligence on the part of the driver. The passenger's representative was entitled to have the jury instructed on the effect of such a finding on a passenger's right to recover. The court did not so instruct the jury, and reversal is required if the issue was preserved.
"No party may assign as error the giving or failing to give a written instruction, or the giving of an erroneous, misleading, incomplete, or otherwise improper oral charge unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection...."
In Gardner v. Dorsey, 331 So.2d 634, 637 (Ala.1976), it is stated:
In Grayco Resources, Inc. v. Poole, 500 So.2d 1030, 1032-33 (Ala.1986), we stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haddan v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.
... Yulanda Haddan v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Norfolk Southern Corporation No. 1190976 Supreme Court of Alabama February 4, 2022 ... Appeal ... from ... the passenger is otherwise entitled to recovery." ... Id. (citing Alewine v. Southern Ry. , 531 ... So.2d 315 (Ala. 1988)). The court ultimately determined that ... the plaintiff had produced substantial ... ...
-
Edgeworth v. Family Chiropractic & Health
...the waste of time and money from reversals that result from oversight, technical omissions, or remediable mistakes.'" Alewine v. Southern Ry., 531 So.2d 315, 317 (Ala.1988) (quoting Grayco Res., Inc. v. Poole, 500 So.2d 1030, 1032 (Ala.1986)). Despite this Court's repeated explanation that ......
-
Barnett v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.
...does not bar a passenger's right to recovery against a third party if the passenger is otherwise entitled to recovery. Alewine v. Southern Ry., 531 So.2d 315 (Ala.1988). Barnett contends that the railroad and engineer failed to sound the train whistle as the train approached the crossing; t......
-
Prudential Ballard Realty v. Weatherly, 1981671
...could not have misunderstood the point of the defendants' objection to its refusal to charge the jury on this issue. Alewine v. Southern Ry., 531 So. 2d 315, 317 (Ala. 1988). Additionally, proposed instruction no. 53 cited the Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions as support for why the instruc......