Chambers v. Cox, 8 Div. 213.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtGARDNER, J.
Citation222 Ala. 1,130 So. 416
Docket Number8 Div. 213.
Decision Date23 October 1930
PartiesCHAMBERS ET AL. v. COX.

130 So. 416

222 Ala. 1

CHAMBERS ET AL.
v.
COX.

8 Div. 213.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 23, 1930


Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; W. W. Callahan, Judge.

Action for damages for personal injuries by Sallie Cox against R. A. Chambers and others, doing business as R. A. Chambers & Sons. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Transferred from Court of Appeals.

Affirmed. [130 So. 417]

D. L. Rosenau, Jr., of Athens, for appellant.

Walter J. Price, of Huntsville, and Fred Wall, of Athens, for appellee. [130 So. 418]

GARDNER, J.

Defendants operate a bus running between Decatur and Athens. Near 6 o'clock of December 22, 1928, while three miles out from Athens, the driver parked the bus to repair a puncture. It was dark and very dusty. Plaintiff was a passenger guest in the car of her nephew E. H. Buckner, and traveling in the same direction as the bus. Buckner was driving, and had sole control of his car, and ran into the rear of the bus while so parked for the tire repair. Buckner insists he was traveling with lights burning, looking ahead, and at a speed of about 30 miles an hour, but he did not see the bus until within a few feet, and too near to prevent the collision.

Plaintiff sustained injuries for which she recovered a judgment against defendants as operators of the bus. Plaintiff's evidence tends to show that the bus was parked in the traveled portion of the graveled highway, though there was ample room for it to have been placed for proper tire repair, several feet to the right and out of the way of approaching cars. Her evidence tends further to show negligence of the bus driver in failing to have signal light on the rear of the bus burning.

The evidence of the defendants was to the contrary as to both of these issues of facts, and presents a sharp conflict in the proof.

Demurrers to the first four original counts of the complaint were sustained, and the complaint amended by interposing count B, to which original demurrers were refiled. It is quite apparent that numerous grounds of demurrer are inapplicable to count B. The ruling of the court on this demurrer is given scant consideration in brief, and needs no discussion here. Suffice it to say count B was not subject to any ground of demurrer interposed thereto.

Appellant argues the refusal of the affirmative charge as error upon the theory that the proof fails to show the negligence of defendants' driver was the proximate cause of the accident, but that the same was attributable to the negligence of Buckner solely. But this insistence assumes Buckner's negligence as a matter of law, which clearly is incorrect, and further overlooks the well-recognized rule that "injury arising from the concurring negligence of joint tort-feasors, whether acting together or independently, may be redressed by joint or several action." Steenhuis v. Holland, 217 Ala. 105, 115 So. 2, 3. If defendants' agent was at fault, guilty of actionable negligence, in bringing about the collision, there was no lack of proximate causal connection between the negligence charged and the damage so suffered, though Buckner may also have been negligent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Williams v. Bennett, No. 81-7037
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 29 Octubre 1982
    ...293 Ala. 484, 498, 306 So.2d 236, 249 (1975); Lawson v. General Telephone, 289 Ala. 283, 289, 267 So.2d 132, 138 (1972); Chambers v. Cox, 222 Ala. 1, 3, 130 So. 416, 418 The district court, however, refused to use the requested instructions and instead made abstract references to "proximate......
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 9 Enero 1975
    ...of the dangerous condition. For the cause of an injury to be its proximate cause it need not be the sole proximate cause. Chambers v. Cox, 222 Ala. 1, 3, 130 So. 416, 418 (1930); Havard v. Palmer & Baker Engineers, Inc., supra; Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale, Inc., 288 Ala. 43, 256 So.2d 877......
  • Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale, Inc., 6 Div. 831
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 13 Enero 1972
    ...could not be the sole proximate cause, nonetheless, the jury is directed to return a verdict against the plaintiff. In Chambers v. Cox, 222 Ala. 1, 3, 130 So. 416, 418, we '* * * 'As a general rule, it may be said that negligence, to render a person liable, need not be the sole cause of an ......
  • Griffin v. Bozeman, 2 Div. 97
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 15 Abril 1937
    ...203 Ala. 231, 82 So. 481; Steenhuis v. Holland, 217 Ala. 105, 115 So. 2; Bradford v. Carson, 223 Ala. 594, 137 So. 426; Chambers v. Cox, 222 Ala. 1, 130 So. 416; Smith v. Gayle, 58 Ala. 600; Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. v. Wilkes, 231 Ala. 511, 165 So. 764. But if the joint liability results......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Williams v. Bennett, No. 81-7037
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 29 Octubre 1982
    ...293 Ala. 484, 498, 306 So.2d 236, 249 (1975); Lawson v. General Telephone, 289 Ala. 283, 289, 267 So.2d 132, 138 (1972); Chambers v. Cox, 222 Ala. 1, 3, 130 So. 416, 418 The district court, however, refused to use the requested instructions and instead made abstract references to "proximate......
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 9 Enero 1975
    ...of the dangerous condition. For the cause of an injury to be its proximate cause it need not be the sole proximate cause. Chambers v. Cox, 222 Ala. 1, 3, 130 So. 416, 418 (1930); Havard v. Palmer & Baker Engineers, Inc., supra; Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale, Inc., 288 Ala. 43, 256 So.2d 877......
  • Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale, Inc., 6 Div. 831
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 13 Enero 1972
    ...could not be the sole proximate cause, nonetheless, the jury is directed to return a verdict against the plaintiff. In Chambers v. Cox, 222 Ala. 1, 3, 130 So. 416, 418, we '* * * 'As a general rule, it may be said that negligence, to render a person liable, need not be the sole cause of an ......
  • Griffin v. Bozeman, 2 Div. 97
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 15 Abril 1937
    ...203 Ala. 231, 82 So. 481; Steenhuis v. Holland, 217 Ala. 105, 115 So. 2; Bradford v. Carson, 223 Ala. 594, 137 So. 426; Chambers v. Cox, 222 Ala. 1, 130 So. 416; Smith v. Gayle, 58 Ala. 600; Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. v. Wilkes, 231 Ala. 511, 165 So. 764. But if the joint liability results......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT