Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Beck

• Decision Date: 13 May 1911
• Citation: 55 So. 428,1 Ala.App. 291
• Parties: BIRMINGHAM RY., LIGHT & POWER CO. v. BECK.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

55 So. 428

1 Ala.App. 291

BIRMINGHAM RY., LIGHT & POWER CO. v. BECK.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

May 13, 1911

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1911.

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; Charles A. Senn, Judge.

Action by J. L. Beck against the Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow and L. C. Leadbeater for appellant.

McArthur & Howard, for appellee.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

The appellee brought this suit against the appellant for damages alleged to have been sustained by him as the husband of Mrs Hesta Beck, because of alleged injuries sustained by her through the alleged negligence of the appellant's servants while she was a passenger on one of the appellant's street cars. The case was tried upon the plea of the general issue, and there was a verdict and judgment for the appellee.

While the evidence of the appellant tended to show that the injury to the wife complained of in the complaint if she was in fact injured, was due to no fault of the appellant or its agents or servants, the evidence of the appellee tended to show that the wife of the appellee, who was pregnant at the time, in attempting to alight from one of the appellant's cars on which she was a passenger, was through the negligence of appellant's servants, thrown to the ground, painfully injuring her, and from the result of which fall she aborted, or miscarried. The fact that plaintiff's wife suffered a miscarriage, or abortion, was not questioned, and it was for the jury to determine, under the testimony in the case, whether or not the abortion, or miscarriage, was due to an injury received by her through the negligence of appellant's servants. The only question in the case was whether the wife was in fact injured, and, if so, whether the injury was occasioned by the negligence of the agents or servants of the appellant, and, if so, the amount of the damage sustained thereby. The only evidence offered by the appellant in the case was evidence tending to show that the appellee's wife was not injured through the negligence or fault of its servants or agents. It offered no evidence whatever as to the injury, if one was in fact suffered by her, or the extent of it.

During the progress of the trial, the appellee introduced one George Hogan, a physician, as a witness, who qualified as an expert. Hogan did not see the appellee's wife until several days after the alleged injury. When he first saw her, she was threatened with an abortion, or miscarriage, and subsequently, while he attended her, she miscarried. He made no examination for the purpose of ascertaining whether she had suffered any previous injury, and he did not know whether the abortion, or miscarriage, was due from excitement or mental worry, from excessive physical exertion, or from some injury previously sustained. He did not treat her...