Beavers v. Boykin
Decision Date | 10 May 1962 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 676 |
Parties | Eldridge BEAVERS, as Administrator, etc. v. Ural BOYKIN. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
D. G. Ewing, Birmingham, for appellant.
London, Yancey, Clark & Allen and Bibb Allen, Birmingham, for appellee.
Appellant brought suit against appellee for damages sustained by appellant's intestate (Elzetta Kidd) as a result of a collision between an automobile owned and operated by one Louis Davis and the automobile of appellee, which was being operated by his agent or employee, and in which appellant's intestate was riding as a guest of appellee. The case was submitted to the jury on the complaint, as amended, which charged appellee with wanton misconduct, in that his agent or employee, while acting within the line and scope of his employment as such agent or employee wantonly injured appellant's intestate by wantonly driving the automobile of appellee upon or against the automobile of one Davis.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee and the trial court rendered judgment on such verdict. From this judgment, this appeal is taken.
Appellant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to give the following written charge requested by appellant:
It is axiomatic that a case will not be reversed on the refusal of a requested charge where the same principle of law is substantially covered in the court's oral charge. Such a refusal must be found, after an examination of the entire cause, to have probably injuriously affected the substantial rights of the parties. Title 7, § 273, Code 1940; Helms v. State, 254 Ala. 14, 47 So.2d 276; Bahakel v. Great Southern Trucking Co., 249 Ala. 363, 31 So.2d 75.
Here the court charged as follows:
* * *
'* * * if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that any witness has testified--has maliciously testified falsely in the case, you have a right to take that into consideration and disregard any or all of that witness's testimony in your good sound judgment and discretion.'
Of course it would have made our task easier if the trial court has used the approved terminology, 'wilfully and corruptly', but we find nothing to indicate that the court's refusal to give the requested charge injuriously affected the substantial rights of appellant, since the court's oral charge substantially covered the subject matter thereof. Bahakel v. Great Southern Trucking Co., supra.
In addition, this court has repeatedly urged caution in the application of the maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'. Tindell v. Guy, 243 Ala. 535, 10 So.2d 862. The prevailing attitude of the courts toward such instructions is 4 A.L.R.2d 1078. Professor Wigmore on Evidence, § 1008, p. 675, states his view as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lussier v. Mau-Van Development, Inc.
...the verdict or denied the defendant a fair trial lies within the discretion of the trial court. Smith v. Gizzi, supra; Beavers v. Boykin, 273 Ala. 413, 142 So.2d 10 (1962). In the instant case, Lussier has not indicated how the statements biased the trial court or influenced the direction o......
-
Palmer v. Rucker
...application of the maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'. Tindell v. Guy, 243 Ala. 534, 10 So.2d 862. . . ..' Beavers v. Boykin, 273 Ala. 413, 415, 142 So.2d 1011 (1962). The rule is generally stated that if the trier of fact is reasonably satisfied that a witness has willfully and corru......
-
Sanders v. Scarvey
...256 Ala. 634, 56 So.2d 631. The 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' portion of the oral charge is very similar to that in Beavers v. Boykin, 273 Ala. 413, 142 So.2d 10, where the court '* * * If you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that any witness has testified--has maliciously te......
-
Freeman v. Hall
...Co. of California v. Nichols, 266 Ala. 521, 97 So.2d 879; St. Clair County v. Martin, 273 Ala. 302, 139 So.2d 617; Beavers v. Boykin, 273 Ala. 413, 142 So.2d 10; Campbell v. Davis, 274 Ala. 555, 150 So.2d The next argument made by the appellant is to the effect that the trial court erred in......