Barrett v. McFerren, 6 Div. 658
| Decision Date | 16 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 658 |
| Citation | 231 Ala. 382,165 So. 226 |
| Parties | BARRETT v. McFERREN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.F. Thompson, Judge.
Action for damages by Lydia McFerren against J.C. Barrett. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Wilkinson & Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellant.
John W Altman, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Action for personal injuries received in automobile collision on a public highway.
The main contention on this appeal is that the motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive should have been granted. The verdict was for $5,000.
The complaint charged simple negligence and wanton injury.
Evidence for plaintiff tended to show defendant, while drunk or much under the influence of intoxicants, drove his new Auburn car on the paved highway, Birmingham to Montgomery, at a speed of 60 miles per hour; overtook plaintiff's Chevrolet car driven by her in the same direction at a speed of some 25 to 30 miles per hour on the right-hand side of the center line and, without signals of approach, collided in passing, turned the Chevrolet upside down, inflicting personal injuries on plaintiff.
Evidence for defendant tended to show he was not drunk; was not driving over 40 to 45 miles per hour; that he gave signals of approach; and that the accident was due to plaintiff's car turning to the left over the center line of the road, as defendant was in the act of passing.
The solution of the conflicting versions of the transaction was for the jury. If the jury believed plaintiff's version to be true, a question of wanton injury was presented.
The general verdict must be viewed in the light of the discretion of the jury to impose punitive damages for wanton injury under the evidence and the instructions of the trial court. Indulging the presumptions due to the verdict of the jury sustained by the trial court, we cannot say the imposition of punitive damages was clearly and palpably wrong and unjust.
This court recognizes a duty to review verdicts for excessiveness, even where wanton wrong justified the imposition of punitive damages. The discretion of the jury in such cases is not an unbridled license.
But manifestly, in the exercise of a sound discretion, the nature of the wanton act, the importance of preventing the grave results of such wanton conduct, is a matter for the thoughtful consideration of the jury. Some torts, though wantonly committed, can result at most in minor injuries to person or property, but others involve the sacredness and inestimable value of human life. Reckless driving of motorcars on our streets and highways is of this latter class. Common knowledge of the tragic toll of life and limb, swollen to the proportions of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hadad v. Lockeby
... ... v. Pelligrini, Inc., 163 Miss. 385, 114 So. 273; Barrett ... v. McFerren, 165 So. 226, 231 Ala. 382; Jones v ... ...
-
Fortson v. Hester
...39 So.2d 649 252 Ala. 143 FORTSON et al. v. HESTER. 7 Div. 994.Supreme Court of AlabamaMarch 17, 1949 ... The time was ... about 6 A.M. when 'good daylight had not broken' on ... account of ... Co. v. McCalla, 244 Ala. 479, ... 13 So.2d 865; Barrett v. McFerren, 231 Ala. 382, 165 ... So. 226; J. C. Byram & ... ...
-
James v. Sellers
...car with the knowledge that in doing so injury would probably result is a question for the jury. Rosen v. Lawson, Supra; Barrett v. McFerren, 231 Ala. 382, 165 So. 226. The evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable inference to be drawn adverse to the appellee, and the granting of the d......
-
Exploring Wantonness
...Inge v. Nelson, 564 So. 2d 906, 907 (Ala. 1990); Crovo v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 336 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Ala. 1976); Barrett v. McFerren, 231 Ala. 382, 165 So. 226 (1936); Stamp v. Jackson, 887 So. 2d 274, 279-80 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). "[I]f intoxication renders [a person] reckless or indi......