Chesser v. Williams, 7 Div. 374

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtGOODWYN; LIVINGSTON
Citation104 So.2d 918,268 Ala. 57
PartiesMary M. CHESSER v. Lorenza B. WILLIAMS et al.
Decision Date28 August 1958
Docket Number7 Div. 374

Page 918

104 So.2d 918
268 Ala. 57
Mary M. CHESSER
v.
Lorenza B. WILLIAMS et al.
7 Div. 374.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Aug. 28, 1958.

[268 Ala. 58] J. Earl Langner, Birmingham, for appellant.

Wales W. Wallace, Jr., Columbiana, and Reynolds & Reynolds, Clanton, for appellee Williams.

Handy Ellis, Columbiana, for appellee Thomas.

GOODWYN, Justice.

The appellant, Mary M. Chesser, brought suit in the circuit court of Shelby County against appellees, Lorenza B. Williams and W. A. Thomas, to recover for damage done to a building owned by her, the said damage allegedly resulting from an automobile collision between appellees on an adjacent public highway. To the extent here material the one count of the complaint alleges

Page 919

the following: 'Defendants negligently damaged a building of the plaintiff which was situated on the private property of the plaintiff * * * by negligently driving or operating the motor vehicles which were then and there being driven or operated by them in such a manner that the motor vehicles by reason of the combined or concurring negligence of the said defendants were caused to collide and one of them to crash into, over, upon or against the building and improvements of the plaintiff which was located on the private property of the plaintiff and off the highway right-of-way, and as a proximate consequence and result of said combined or concurring negligence of the said defendants the building and improvements of the plaintiff were damaged'; and that 'her damages aforesaid were proximately caused by and resulted from the said combined or concurring negligence of the defendants at the time and place aforesaid.'

At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence the defendants rested and each separately [268 Ala. 59] requested in writing that the affirmative charge with hypothesis be given in his favor. These charges were given. The jury then returned a verdict in favor of defendants and judgment on said verdict was duly entered. This appeal is from that judgment.

The position taken by appellant is that the trial court't reason for giving the affirmative charges was laid in error and, also, that there was sufficient evidence, under the scintilla rule, for the case to go to the jury as against both defendants. It was indicated by the trial court that the basis for giving the charges was the lack of evidence showing both defendants to be guilty of negligence. Appellant argues that it was not incumbent on her to prove that both defendants were negligent in order for her to recover against one shown to be negligent. On the other hand, each of the appellees takes the position that there is no evidence of negligence on his part and that the affirmative charge with hypothesis as to him was properly given.

Apparently, the appellees recognize that it was not necessary to show negligence of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Guy
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 9, 1967
    ...Glass v. Davison, 276 Ala. 328, 161 So.2d 811; Southern Apartments, Inc. v. Emmett, 269 Ala. 584, 114 So.2d 453; Chesser v. Williams, 268 Ala. 57, 104 So.2d The theory of Count One is that appellant created a dangerous condition in that its high voltage wires were maintained in a weak and u......
  • W. S. Fowler Rental Equipment Co. v. Skipper, 6 Div. 782
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • July 25, 1963
    ...the more probable. Stathem v. Ferrell, 267 Ala. 333, 101 So.2d 546; Hamilton v. Browning, 257 Ala. 72, 57 So.2d 530; Chesser v. Williams, 268 Ala. 57, 104 So.2d Viewing the evidence most favorably for the appellee, Skipper, the following material facts appear. Skipper is a farm and construc......
  • Lankford v. Mong, 7 Div. 707
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 12, 1968
    ...So.2d 375; Mobile Cab & Baggage Co. v. Busby, 277 Ala. 292, 169 So.2d 314; Duke v. Gaines, 224 Ala. 519, 140 So. 600; Chesser v. Williams, 268 Ala. 57, 104 So.2d Wantonness is the conscious doing of some act or omission of some duty under knowledge of the existing conditions and conscious t......
  • Mixon v. Whitman, 4 Div. 130
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 17, 1966
    ...or the reasonable inferences arising therefrom furnish a mere gleam, glimmer, or spark in support of a theory. Chesser v. Williams, 268 Ala. 57, 104 So.2d We see no occasion to encumber this opinion with a statement of the evidence. The voluminous record, containing more than four hundred p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Guy
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 9, 1967
    ...Glass v. Davison, 276 Ala. 328, 161 So.2d 811; Southern Apartments, Inc. v. Emmett, 269 Ala. 584, 114 So.2d 453; Chesser v. Williams, 268 Ala. 57, 104 So.2d The theory of Count One is that appellant created a dangerous condition in that its high voltage wires were maintained in a weak and u......
  • W. S. Fowler Rental Equipment Co. v. Skipper, 6 Div. 782
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • July 25, 1963
    ...the more probable. Stathem v. Ferrell, 267 Ala. 333, 101 So.2d 546; Hamilton v. Browning, 257 Ala. 72, 57 So.2d 530; Chesser v. Williams, 268 Ala. 57, 104 So.2d Viewing the evidence most favorably for the appellee, Skipper, the following material facts appear. Skipper is a farm and construc......
  • Lankford v. Mong, 7 Div. 707
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 12, 1968
    ...So.2d 375; Mobile Cab & Baggage Co. v. Busby, 277 Ala. 292, 169 So.2d 314; Duke v. Gaines, 224 Ala. 519, 140 So. 600; Chesser v. Williams, 268 Ala. 57, 104 So.2d Wantonness is the conscious doing of some act or omission of some duty under knowledge of the existing conditions and conscious t......
  • Mixon v. Whitman, 4 Div. 130
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 17, 1966
    ...or the reasonable inferences arising therefrom furnish a mere gleam, glimmer, or spark in support of a theory. Chesser v. Williams, 268 Ala. 57, 104 So.2d We see no occasion to encumber this opinion with a statement of the evidence. The voluminous record, containing more than four hundred p......
  • 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