Godfrey v. Vinson, 3 Div. 768

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtBOULDIN, J.
Citation110 So. 13,215 Ala. 166
PartiesGODFREY v. VINSON.
Docket Number3 Div. 768
Decision Date24 June 1926

110 So. 13

215 Ala. 166

GODFREY
v.
VINSON.

3 Div. 768

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 24, 1926


Rehearing Denied Nov. 4, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones, Judge.

Action for damages by J.B. Vinson against H.T. Godfrey. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

In reviewing the propriety of directing a verdict for one of the parties, the evidence of the adverse party must be taken as true, and considered in the light most favorable to him. [110 So. 14]

The witness Dr. A.H. Montgomery testified that he treated the plaintiff on the occasion of the accident; that plaintiff was "bruised up a good deal and had a fracture [110 So. 15] at the junction of what is termed the middle and lower part of the femur"; that the leg was placed in "sand bags" and kept there for about five weeks; that there was no union and an operation was performed, sawing off the bone to make it raw and putting on a steel plate with screws put through to hold the bone in place; that the bone still did not unite, but began to slough; that finally, after treatment, the bone united, "but at an angle that makes his leg crooked and short." The witness further testified that "all during this time" plaintiff "suffered terribly from emaciation, and at one time it looked as if we would have to cut his leg off in order to save his life"; and that plaintiff was confined in the hospital five or six months. The witness further testified:

"As far as the operation of scraping the bone is concerned, we have been doing that ever since, and will have to do it some yet. He has got a bad leg like it is now. It is a permanent injury. It is shorter. He will never have a good leg; never have a perfect leg. It is set somewhat at an angle now. *** I don't think he will ever be able to do hard work on that leg."

These charges were given for plaintiff:

"(a) The court charges the jury that the violations of the city ordinances introduced in evidence would not prevent the plaintiff from recovering of the defendant for simple negligence on the part of defendant as charged in the first count of the complaint unless the jury is reasonably satisfied from the evidence that such violation contributed proximately to the injury complained of and the burden of proof of such fact rested on defendant to so reasonably satisfy the jury
"(b) The court charges the jury that the violation of the city ordinances introduced in evidence by the defendant is not a defense to plaintiff's claim as set forth in the second count of the complaint."

There was verdict for plaintiff for $9,000 and judgment accordingly.

Rushton, Crenshaw & Rushton, of Montgomery, for appellant.

Hill, Hill, Whiting, Thomas & Rives, of Montgomery, for appellee.

BOULDIN, J.

This was an action in damages for personal injuries arising out of a collision between an automobile owned and driven by defendant, and a bicycle ridden by plaintiff, a police officer of the city of Montgomery. The collison occurred at the intersection of Montgomery and Wilkerson streets in this city. The case was tried on count 1 for simple negligence, count 2 for wanton injury, plea of the general issue, and plea of contributory negligence to first count.

Under present statute a bill of exceptions will not be stricken or disregarded by the court ex mero motu because not "presented" or "signed" within the time required by law, but only on motion to strike duly made and submitted with the cause. Code, § 6434.

Appellant presents the ruling of the court in submitting to the jury the issue under the wanton count--refusal of the affirmative charge thereon. Wantonness has been so often and so clearly defined that we merely cite a few of the many cases. B.R. & R. Co. v. Bowers, 110 Ala. 328, 20 So. 345; L. & N.R.R. v. Brown, 121 Ala. 221, 25 So. 609; M. & C.R.R. Co. v. Martin, 131 Ala. 269, 30 So. 827; A.G.S.R. Co. v. Burgess, 114 Ala. 587, 22 So. 169; Southern Ry. v. Gantt, 210 Ala. 383, 98 So. 192; Mobile Light Co. v. Gadik, 211 Ala. 582, 100 So. 837; Johnson v. Warrant Warehouse Co., 211 Ala. 165, 99 So. 920; Copeland v. Cen. of Ga. Ry. Co., 213 Ala. 620, 105 So. 810.

In dealing with the affirmative charge refused to defendant, the court must look to the strongest tendencies of the evidence for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
82 practice notes
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 October 1928
    ...references of witnesses to the diagram before the court (Fayet v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co., 203 Ala. 3, 81 So. 671; Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. 13; Jefferson v. Republic Iron Co., 208 Ala. 143, 93 So. 890), in the absence of evidence of the exact location of Deputy Jones, and of ......
  • Meyn v. Dulaney-miller Auto Co, No. 8465.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 3 April 1937
    ...for him to avert the accident. Chunn v. City & Suburban Ry. of Washington, 207 U.S. 302, 28 S.Ct. 63, 52 L.Ed. 219; Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. 13; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Skipper (1927) 174 Ark. 1083, 298 S.W. 849; Harrington v. Los Angeles Ry. Co, 140 Cal. 514, 74 P. 15, 63 L.R......
  • McLaney v. Turner, 4 Div. 889
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 19 June 1958
    ...court's action in submitting to the jury the question as to whether the defendant's conduct constituted wantonness. Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. 13; Alabama Power Co. v. Buck, 250 Ala. 618, 35 So.2d 355; Smith v. Lawson, 264 Ala. 389, 88 So.2d 322; Fortson v. Hester, 252 Ala. 14......
  • Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, 6 Div. 17
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 6 December 1928
    ...87 So. 168; Montgomery L. & P. Co. v. Thombs, 204 Ala. 678, 87 So. 205; Shafer v. Myers, 215 Ala. 678, 112 So. 230; Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. 13; City Ice Delivery v. Lecari, 210 Ala. 629, 98 So. 901; Marbury Lbr. Co. v. Jones, 206 Ala. 669, 91 So. 623, 23 A.L.R. 309; Nashvil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
82 cases
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 6 Div. 950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 October 1928
    ...references of witnesses to the diagram before the court (Fayet v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co., 203 Ala. 3, 81 So. 671; Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. 13; Jefferson v. Republic Iron Co., 208 Ala. 143, 93 So. 890), in the absence of evidence of the exact location of Deputy Jones, and of ......
  • Meyn v. Dulaney-miller Auto Co, No. 8465.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 3 April 1937
    ...for him to avert the accident. Chunn v. City & Suburban Ry. of Washington, 207 U.S. 302, 28 S.Ct. 63, 52 L.Ed. 219; Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. 13; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Skipper (1927) 174 Ark. 1083, 298 S.W. 849; Harrington v. Los Angeles Ry. Co, 140 Cal. 514, 74 P. 15, 63 L.R......
  • McLaney v. Turner, 4 Div. 889
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 19 June 1958
    ...court's action in submitting to the jury the question as to whether the defendant's conduct constituted wantonness. Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. 13; Alabama Power Co. v. Buck, 250 Ala. 618, 35 So.2d 355; Smith v. Lawson, 264 Ala. 389, 88 So.2d 322; Fortson v. Hester, 252 Ala. 14......
  • Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, 6 Div. 17
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 6 December 1928
    ...87 So. 168; Montgomery L. & P. Co. v. Thombs, 204 Ala. 678, 87 So. 205; Shafer v. Myers, 215 Ala. 678, 112 So. 230; Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. 13; City Ice Delivery v. Lecari, 210 Ala. 629, 98 So. 901; Marbury Lbr. Co. v. Jones, 206 Ala. 669, 91 So. 623, 23 A.L.R. 309; Nashvil......
  • 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