Boyette v. Bradley
Citation | 100 So. 647,211 Ala. 370 |
Decision Date | 29 May 1924 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 989. |
Parties | BOYETTE v. BRADLEY ET AL. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Greene, Judge.
Action by Willie F. Boyette against Lee C. Bradley and J. S. Pevear as coreceivers of the Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Company, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received when a street car collided with the automobile in which he was driving. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Plaintiff's witness Adams testified that he was a passenger on the street car which collided with plaintiff's automobile; that it was running about 40 miles an hour, racing with a jitney; that he did not see the automobile before it was hit, but saw it afterwards.
On cross-examination he testified that he had only known the Boyettes since the accident; that he was painting at the time and had done one job for a Mr. Jones; that he had been in Birmingham for four or five months prior to the accident, and had not been painting all the time.
Over plaintiff's objection the witness was asked what other jobs he had had, and replied that he had had four or five different ones-painting a dwelling on Third avenue and working for the Frisco Railroad as a deputy under the sheriff during the strike.
Other evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that his car started to turn and cross the street car track; that the congestion of traffic forced his car to stop on the track and that it was struck by the rapidly approaching street car.
The tendency of defendant's evidence was that the driver of plaintiff's car turned around upon the track, in the middle of the street, and was moving at the time of the impact; that the street car was traveling 20 to 25 miles an hour, and that there was no congestion of traffic or anything to obstruct the view of the approaching street car by plaintiff's driver.
Defendant's witness Daniels testified that he was driving in an ambulance near the scene of the accident; that he witnessed the collision; that plaintiff's car was turning around in the middle of the street, and across the track, that it was moving when struck; that he observed no congestion or obstruction to plaintiff's driver's view.
Over plaintiff's objection and motion to exclude, this witness was asked how far, in his judgment, the street car ran after the collision, and answered:
"I stopped there as I came on back, *** and looked, and *** I don't think the car ran over- The car stopped, I imagine, about 20 or 30 feet, not over 35 feet."
The witness further testified that there were signs of the automobile having been dragged, and that he based his judgment upon these signs.
The following charges were given at defendants' request:
Black, Harris & Foster, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Tillman, Bradley & Baldwin, E. L. All, and John S. Coleman, all of Birmingham, for appellees.
The appeal is in a double aspect-from the original judgment, and from that overruling the motion for a new trial. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Lowe, 208 Ala. 12, 93 So. 765; Lewis v. Martin, 210 Ala. 401, 98 So. 635.
The complaint contained counts for simple and subsequent negligence and for wantonness on defendants' part. Defendants pleaded the general issue and contributory negligence.
After the parties were in the automobile, plaintiff states, on cross-examination, what happened, as follows:
The motorman testified:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adler v. Miller
...... State, 209 Ala. 36, 42, 95 So. 171; Riley v. State, 209 Ala. 505, 510, 96 So. 599; Ex parte Morrow,. 210 Ala. 63, 97 So. 108; Boyett v. Bradley, 211 Ala. 370, 100 So. 647; Feore v. Trammel, 212 Ala. 325,. 102 So. 529; Morris v. Corona Co., 215 Ala. 48, 109. So. 278; 4 A. L. R. 1049. . . ......
-
Foreman v. Dorsey Trailers
...a wanton count. Birmingham Electric Co. v. Carver, 255 Ala. 471, 52 So.2d 200; Seitz v. Heep, 243 Ala. 372, 10 So.2d 148; Boyette v. Bradley, 211 Ala. 370, 100 So. 647; Lindsey v. Kindt, 221 Ala. 190, 128 So. The same would be true if the charge was hypothesized on plaintiff's wanton conduc......
-
Merchants' Bank v. Sherman
...of contributing negligence. The last named must be especially pleaded and not required to be negatived in the complaint. Boyette v. Bradley, 211 Ala. 370, 100 So. 647. many grounds of demurrer are to the effect that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the explosion an......
-
Preston v. LaSalle Apartments
...... decided. Coleman v. Hamilton Storage Co., 235 Ala. 553, 180 So. 553; Honeycutt v. Birmingham Electric. Co., 236 Ala. 221, 181 So. 772; Boyette v. Bradley, 211 Ala. 370, 100 So. 647; Montgomery Light. & Traction Co. v. Harris, 197 Ala. 236, 72 So. 545;. Decatur Light Co. v. Newsom, 179 ......