"22.
The court charges the jury that if you are reasonably
satisfied from the evidence in this case that on the occasion
complained of the driver of defendant's truck
immediately prior to the accident was driving said truck on
the right hand side of the road in the direction in which it
was going at a reasonable rate of speed, and if you are
further reasonably satisfied from the evidence that
immediately prior to the accident the truck in which
plaintiff was riding was being driven on its right hand side
of the road at approximately 25 to 30 miles per hour, and
within a distance of approximately 30 or 35 feet behind a
truck which was being driven in the same direction and at
about the same rate of speed, and if you are further
reasonably satisfied from the evidence that immediately
before the accident, the truck which was ahead of the truck
in which the plaintiff was riding came to a sudden stop, and
the brakes on the truck in which plaintiff was riding were in
such a defective condition that they would not hold the
truck, and the driver thereof to avoid striking the truck
that had come to a sudden stop turned to the left and in
front of defendant's truck, and the driver of
defendant's truck was unable by the application of
brakes, or the swerving of the truck to avoid the impending
collision, then I charge you that plaintiff would not be
entitled to recover in this case."
"E.
I charge you that if you are reasonably satisfied from the
evidence that the plaintiff before filing this suit made a
settlement with his Employer or its Insurance Carrier for the
injuries received on the occasion set out in his complaint
and here sued for and that said settlement was made under the
Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Alabama, and
prior to or since the filing of this suit was approved as a
final settlement by a Judge of this Court, I then charge you,
the Employer of the plaintiff or its insurance carrier was
and is now to the extent of said sum paid to the plaintiff
subrogated to such rights if any the plaintiff had or has to
sue this defendant for damages.
"F.
I charge you in law when one party is subrogated to the
rights of another, the party to whom the rights of another
passes obtains no greater right than the other party had
prior to rights passing from the party originally having the
rights."
"16.
The Court charges the jury that if you are reasonably
satisfied from the evidence in this case that on the occasion
complained of the driver of the truck in which the plaintiff
was riding was driving said truck at a speed of 25 to 30
miles per hour, and within a distance of about 30 or 35 feet
between his truck and a truck ahead of him and proceeding in
the same direction, and that when the truck reached the curve
near Union Road and just past Union Road the truck ahead of
the truck in which plaintiff was riding was brought to a
sudden stop, and the driver of the truck in which plaintiff
was riding attempted to apply the foot and hand brakes on
said truck, and said brakes were in a defective condition and
would not stop said truck, and the driver thereof to avoid
striking the truck immediately ahead of him which had come to
said sudden stop, or for a reason of his own, pulled to the
left and directly across the path of the defendant's
truck, which was coming on said road from the opposite
direction and was so close to the truck in which plaintiff
was riding when it pulled to the left and in front of
defendant's truck that he could not by the exercise of
reasonable diligence avoid a collision with the truck in
which plaintiff was riding, and if you are further reasonably
satisfied from the evidence that said collision was the sole
proximate result of the defective condition of the brakes on
the truck in which plaintiff was riding, then I charge you
that you cannot return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff
under count one of the complaint.
"16A.
The Court charges the jury that if you are reasonably
satisfied from the evidence in this case that on the occasion
complained of the driver of the truck in which the plaintiff
was riding was driving said truck at a speed of 25 to 30
miles per hour, and within a distance of about 30 or 35 feet
between his truck and a truck ahead of him and proceeding in
the same direction, and that when the truck reached the curve
near Union Road and just past Union Road the truck ahead of
the truck in which plaintiff was riding was brought to a
sudden stop, and the driver of the truck in which plaintiff
was riding attempted to apply the foot and hand brakes on
said truck, and said brakes were in a defective condition and
would not stop said truck, or the driver considered the
brakes defective, and the driver thereof to avoid striking
the truck immediately ahead of him which had come to said
sudden stop, or without necessity therefor, voluntarily
pulled to the left and directly across the path of the
defendant's truck, which was coming on said road from the
opposite direction and was so close to the truck in which
plaintiff was riding when it pulled to the left and in front
of defendant's truck that he could not by the exercise of
reasonable diligence avoid a collision
with the truck in which plaintiff was riding, and if you are
further reasonably satisfied from the evidence that said
collision was the sole proximate result of the defective
condition of the brakes on the truck in which plaintiff was
riding, or the negligence of the driver of said truck, then I
charge you that you cannot return a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff under count one of the complaint."
"27.
The Court charges the jury that if you are reasonably
satisfied from the evidence in this case that on the occasion
complained of the driver of the truck in which plaintiff was
riding was driving same at 25 or 30 miles per hour, and
following within approximately 35 feet of the truck
proceeding on said road in the same direction, and if you are
further reasonably satisfied from the evidence that
immediately before the accident the said truck which was
traveling ahead of the truck in which plaintiff was riding
came to a sudden stop, and if you are further reasonably
satisfied from the evidence that when said truck came to said
sudden stop, the driver of the truck in which plaintiff was
riding attempted to apply the foot and hand brakes thereof,
and that said foot and hand brakes were in such defective
condition they would not hold the truck, and to avoid running
into the truck which he was following the driver of the truck
in which plaintiff was riding turned his truck suddenly to
the left and into the path of the defendant's truck, and
if you are further reasonably satisfied from the evidence
that the driver of the defendant's truck at said time was
operating same as a reasonably prudent person would under
like or similar circumstances, and did all that a reasonably
prudent person would have done in an effort to avoid the
impending collision, and if you are further reasonably
satisfied from the evidence that the sole proximate cause of
the collision, with the resulting injury to plaintiff, was
the action of the driver of the truck in which the plaintiff
was riding in following too close to the truck which came to
a sudden stop and the defective condition of the brakes of
his truck, then you cannot return a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff."
"H.
I charge you that if you are reasonably...
