Armour & Co. v. Cartledge, 6 Div. 28

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: FOSTER, Justice.
• Citation: 234 Ala. 644,176 So. 334
• Parties: ARMOUR & CO. et al. v. CARTLEDGE.
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 28
• Decision Date: 07 October 1937

176 So. 334

234 Ala. 644

ARMOUR & CO. et al.
v.
CARTLEDGE.

6 Div. 28

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 7, 1937

Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Edgar Bowron, Judge.

Action for damages by W.H. Cartledge against Armour & Co., and Claude Williams. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed. [176 So. 336]

Coleman, Spain, Stewart & Davies and Frank M. Young, all of Birmingham, for appellants.

J.P. Mudd, of Birmingham, for appellee.

These charges were refused to defendants:

Assignment 17: "52. The Court charges you, gentlemen of the jury, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages for his likelihood of suffering in the future."

Assignment 18: "The Court charges you, Gentlemen of the Jury, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages because he is liable to suffer in the future additional damages as a proximate result of the alleged brain injury."

FOSTER, Justice.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between the Austin truck which he was driving and a Ford truck driven by defendant Claude Williams for defendant Armour & Co., on a public highway extending from Birmingham eastwardly toward Gadsden, at a point east of Roebuck Club toward Huffman. Defendant's truck, which we will call the Ford, was traveling westwardly toward Birmingham and the Austin in the opposite direction. It was not a head-on collision, but the front left side of the Austin and rear left side of the Ford collided in the highway.

The theory and evidence of plaintiff was that the Austin was traveling on the right side of the paved portion of the road, which had no center line marked, and that the Ford was traveling in the opposite direction meeting the Austin, but with its left wheels about two feet across what was supposed to be the center, at a point in the road making a gradual curve to the right toward Birmingham, or the west; that the Ford approached too close, plaintiff thinking he would turn any time, and finally did make a sharp turn to his right, but too late to prevent a collision, though plaintiff remained on his right to the time of the collision.

Defendant's evidence tends to show that both trucks were approaching each on his right side of the road, and, when the Austin suddenly turned to its left so close to the Ford, that though the Ford made a quick turn to its right, the collision could not have been avoided.

Much evidence was offered as to both aspects by eyewitnesses and photographs, and description of the conditions as they appeared after the collision.

Appellant moved for a new trial because the verdict for plaintiff was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The court overruled that motion, and such ruling is here sought to be reviewed with great emphasis.

Assignment No. 30.

But we cannot agree with appellant that the evidence is such that we should reverse the trial court in that respect. It was a clear-cut jury question, which could be decided either way. We do not think that a discussion of the evidence would serve any useful purpose.

Assignment No. 29.

The bill of exceptions shows the following on page 372 of the transcript: "Mr. Mudd: Now, let's see what they did. It is undisputed--they admitted it--that it was Armour & Company called them up and they got out there within an hour and while that man was lying in the hospital unconscious over there they were building up their defense to deny this man here recompense for his damages and are willing to pay doctors fifty dollars to come in here and testify and spend money like water. What? To beat this [176 So. 337] man, out of his damages that he is due. Now, that is what it is. Now, I say to you, I don't care what witnesses they got. They took pictures and interviewed fourteen or fifteen men out there. I don't know how many men they interviewed out of that fourteen or fifteen that told them a different story. I guess they told them a different story. They didn't bring them in here."

The objection does not relate to a specific feature of that excerpt. The argument here is directed to that part of it relating to the payment by defendant to doctors and spending money "like water" to beat plaintiff. But it was only after counsel had left that subject and was discussing something else that objection was made not to any certain remarks of counsel but only "to that line of argument," presumably referring to the line he was then pursuing. The particular line he was then pursuing was not objectionable nor is it urged here as so by appellant's counsel. We see no error in this ruling.

Assignments 21, 22, and 23.

Appellant requested charges, separately, that plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages for medical expenses, doctor's bills, or hospital charges. Such damages were claimed in the complaint. The evidence shows that plaintiff was treated by doctors, using medicine, and spent several weeks in a hospital. It does not show that he paid or incurred any substantial amount for such services. We have no right therefore to assume that more than nominal damages were included. The charges did not seek to limit the recovery to nominal damages in respect to those items. In the form in which they were asked, the court refused them without prejudicial error. Walker County v. Davis, 221 Ala. 195 (19), 128 So. 144; Thomas v. Carter, 218 Ala. 55 (13), 117 So. 634.

Assignments 17 and 18.

The court refused charges by which plaintiff's recovery should not include compensation for his likelihood of future suffering.

Appellant argues this in one aspect on the theory that it is special damages and should be specially claimed. But the complaint does allege that plaintiff is liable to suffer in the future additional damages as a proximate result of said brain injury, and that his earning capacity was permanently impaired. Birmingham Electric Co. v. Cleveland, 216 Ala. 455, 113 So. 403.

When from the evidence an idea of such suffering has no substantial basis, but is purely speculative, no recovery is permissible on that account. It is thus stated in 17 Corpus Juris 1075, § 381: When there is evidence in the case that there will be future effects from an injury, an instruction which justifies an inclusion of them in an award of damages is proper, as, for example, an instruction permitting a recovery for...