Farr v. Blackman Plumbing & Heating Co.
| Decision Date | 29 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 200,6 Div. 199 |
| Parties | Patrick B. FARR, pro ami George W. Farr, v. BLACKMAN PLUMBING & HEATING COMPANY. George W. FARR v. BLACKMAN PLUMBING & HEATING COMPANY. , |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
The provisions of the General City Code of Birmingham (1944) referred to in the opinion are as follows:
'(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching but not having entered an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle within such intersection and turning therein to the left across the line of travel of such first mentioned vehicle, provided the driver of the vehicle turning left has given a plainly visible signal of intention to turn as required in section 1291.
Jackson, Rives, Pettus & Peterson, Birmingham, for appellants.
Mead & Norman, Birmingham, for appellee.
Around 3 o'clock on the afternoon of November 18, 1955, Patrick Brady Farr, a boy fourteen years of age, was seriously injured when the motor scooter on which he was riding collided with a truck driven by Huey Warren Blackman. The truck was owned by Blackman Plumbing & Heating Company, a partnership composed of Huey Warren Blackman and his son, Huey Wilson Blackman.
The boy and his father each brought suit against the partnership, which will be referred to hereafter as the defendant. The boy sued by and through his father and next friend, claiming damages for personal injuries. The father, George W. Farr, claimed damages for loss of services of his minor son and expenses incident to the treatment of his injuries. Both complaints contained counts charging the defendant with negligence and with wanton conduct. In the wanton conduct counts the plaintiffs claimed punitive damages. In both cases the defendant pleaded the general issue in short by consent in the usual form.
The two cases were consolidated and tried together under the statute which authorizes circuit courts in counties of 300,000 or more population to consolidate pending cases of like nature. § 221, Title 7, Code 1940.
The trial resulted in separate verdicts in favor of the defendant. Separate judgments followed the verdicts. Plaintiffs filed their motions for new trials, which were overruled, and they separately appeal to this court. The appeals were consolidated and submitted here on one record.
Defendant's truck, which had been proceeding west on Tuscaloosa Avenue in Birmingham, was brought to a stop at the east side of 12th Street, S.W., for the red light. It was stopped near the center line of the Avenue in the lane designed for traffic moving in a westerly direction. About the same time a large van truck which had been moving in an easterly direction on Tuscaloosa Avenue was also stopped for the red light. The van truck was stopped at about the western edge of 12th Street near the center line of the Avenue in the lane designed for traffic moving in an easterly direction. Several vehicles were stopped behind the van truck.
As the red light changed to green the defendant's truck moved forward. The van truck and the vehicles following it also began to move forward either at the same time as did the defendant's truck or shortly after the defendant's truck first began to move. The defendant's truck began a turn to its left. The van truck and following vehicles were stopped suddenly because of the left turn made by defendant's truck.
While the defendant's truck was completing its left turn and thus heading south into 12th Street and with only three or four feet of the truck still in the intersection proper, the motor scooter operated by young Farr, after skidding in excess of thirty feet, struck the right rear of defendant's truck and as a result young Farr was injured. The motor scooter just prior to the collision was being driven by young Farr in an easterly direction on Tuscaloosa Avenue at a speed estimated as being from twenty to thirty miles an hour. The motor scooter entered the intersection by passing to the right of the van truck and the vehicles behind it.
According to the driver of the vehicle which was immediately behind the van truck, he was not aware of the presence of the motor scooter until four or five seconds after his vehicle and the van truck had been stopped to permit defendant's truck to turn left in front of the van truck. At that time he heard the motor scooter approaching from the rear to his right.
Reversal is sought solely on the ground that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roan v. Smith
...Hardware Co., 227 Ala. 280, 149 So. 703; Bailey v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co., 261 Ala. 526, 75 So.2d 117; Farr v. Blackman Plumbing & Heating Co., 267 Ala. 585, 103 So.2d 777; Jacks v. City of Birmingham, 268 Ala. 138, 105 So.2d 121; Klein v. Harris, 268 Ala. 540, 108 So.2d Assignment o......
-
Humphrey v. Boschung
...Blair v. St. Margaret's Hospital, 285 Ala. 636, 235 So.2d 668; Knabe v. State, 285 Ala. 321, 231 So.2d 887; Farr v. Blackman Plumbing & Heating Co., 267 Ala. 585, 103 So.2d 777. But this court has reversed where it has determined from an examination of the entire record that the jury was mi......
-
Thompson v. Magic City Trucking Service
...is given, is to request an explanatory charge. Jacks v. City of Birmingham, 268 Ala. 138, 105 So.2d 121; Farr v. Blackman Plumbing & Heating Co., 267 Ala. 585, 103 So.2d 777. Under the facts of this case and the authorities cited, the court did not err to reversal in the giving of charge Ap......
-
McClendon v. State
...confuse or mislead the jury, but when such a charge is given, the remedy is to request an explanatory charge. Farr v. Blackman Plumbing & Heating Co., 267 Ala. 585, 103 So.2d 777; Jacks v. City of Birmingham, 268 Ala. 138, 105 So.2d Assignments of error 14, 15, and 16 are mentioned in appel......