Davis v. Radney
| Decision Date | 17 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 454. |
| Citation | 38 So.2d 867,251 Ala. 629 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. RADNEY. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Wilbanks & Wilbanks, of Alexander City, for appellant.
Sam W. Oliver, of Dadeville, for appellee.
This is a suit brought by W. H. Davis against J. M. Radney to recover damages arising out of a collision between the car of the plaintiff, which the plaintiff was driving, and the car of the defendant which the defendant was driving. The accident happened on July 26, 1947, on Highway No. 22 about three miles southwest of Alexander City. The two cars, both with lights burning, met at dusk and collided near the center of the highway. The plaintiff's car was travelling west while the defendant's car was travelling east. The highway is a blacktop highway about 20 feet and 4 inches wide. It had no mark down the center. Tendencies of the evidence showed that plaintiff's car was traveling 30 to 35 miles per hour while defendant's car was travelling at a rate of 35 miles per hour. Tendencies of the evidence further showed that plaintiff's car travelled 300 to 400 feet after the impact and was stopped by a concrete retaining wall on the side of the highway. However, its left front wheel was demolished and its brakes put out of business. Tendencies of the evidence further showed that defendant's car travelled 50 to 60 feet after the impact and stopped on the highway. Both cars were damaged and plaintiff claimed to have received personal injuries. Seven persons were in plaintiff's car and four in defendant's car. The jury found for the defendant and the plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled.
I. It is insisted that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial because the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon were contrary to the great weight of the evidence.
It is not practicable to set out all the details of the evidence but we have considered the evidence with great care. We cannot agree with the contention. The case presents a situation where two cars sideswiped at or near the center of the highway. As to which car was off its side of the highway was a disputed issue of fact. Under the evidence the case was clearly for the jury. In fact the verdict is well supported by the evidence. Certainly the preponderance of the evidence was not so decidedly against the verdict as to convince us that it was wrong and unjust. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Bell v. Nichols, 245 Ala. 274 16 So.2d 799.
II. On cross-examination of Eddie Funderberg, witness for plaintiff, defendant was allowed over plaintiff's objection, to show the injuries to the defendant's car. According to the witness he fixed the fender and the door. This evidence was competent to show the nature of the impact. Besides the range of cross-examination rests largely in the trial court's discretion and its ruling thereon will not be revised unless prejudicial error is clearly made to appear. Bates v. Chilton County, 244 Ala. 297, 13 So.2d 186.
III. W. A. Jones, state highway patrolman, witness for defendant was allowed to testify over objection of plaintiff, as to measurements he made at the scene of the accident from the point of impact between the two cars and the ultimate resting point of the two cars. The objection was on the ground that it was not shown that the two cars were in the same position when the measurements were made as when the accident occurred. There is no merit in this contention. The plaintiff had previously testified that Mr. Jones and Mr. Posey, highway patrolmen, came to the scene of the accident at about 20 to 30 minutes after the accident and neither car had then been moved. Other witnesses testified to the same effect. Besides in McWhorter Transfer Co. v. Peek, 232 Ala. 143, 167 So. 291, 293, this court said, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Hatas
...trial court's discretion and its rulings thereon will not be revised unless prejudicial error is clearly made to appear.--Davis v. Radney, 251 Ala. 629, 38 So.2d 867, and cases cited; Howell v. Greyhound Corp., 257 Ala. 492, 59 So.2d But after a careful review of the entire cause, we are co......
-
Sims v. Struthers
...to support the verdict returned, so we cannot say that the conclusion reached by the jury was manifestly wrong and unjust. Davis v. Radney, 251 Ala. 629, 38 So.2d 867; Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Howell v. Greyhound Corp., 257 Ala. 492, 59 So.2d It is next argued that the trial ......
-
Nagem v. City of Phenix City
...which taken together are relevant to show intoxication." Kingry v. McCardle, 266 Ala. 533, 537, 98 So.2d 44 (1957); Davis v. Radney, 251 Ala. 629, 631, 38 So.2d 867 (1949). Though no one individual circumstance may be sufficient to prove intoxication, the combined effect of all the circumst......
-
Butler v. Walton
...630, 9 So. 738; Washington v. Alabama Mills, Inc., 241 Ala. 327, 2 So.2d 770; Bell v. Nichols, 245 Ala. 274, 16 So.2d 799; Davis v. Radney, 251 Ala. 629, 38 So.2d 867; Ray v. Richardson, 250 Ala. 705, 36 So.2d The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. On Rehearing. In his application for rehearin......