Hill v. State, 8 Div. 288

• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Citation: 27 Ala.App. 202,169 So. 21
• Decision Date: 16 June 1936
• Parties: HILL v. STATE.
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 288

169 So. 21

27 Ala.App. 202

HILL
v.
STATE.

8 Div. 288

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 16, 1936

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Lauderdale County; Robt. M. Hill, Judge.

Lewis (alias Louis) Hill was convicted of recklessly driving an automobile, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Raymond Murphy, of Florence, for appellant.

A.A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, Judge.

Section 1397(51) of the Highway Code of Alabama (Code 1928) provides that any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway carelessly and heedlessly, in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection, and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, any person or property, shall be guilty of reckless driving, and upon conviction shall be punished, etc.

The prosecution in this case was begun by affidavit and returnable to the law and equity court of Lauderdale county, and charged a violation of the section hereinabove referred to.

The evidence for the state tended to prove that the defendant was driving a model T Ford and running about 25 miles an hour up a grade and around a curve, after dark, with no lights on his car. According to the witnesses for the state, the defendant was driving on the left-hand side of the road and so close thereto that an automobile coming in the opposite direction could not pass on the side of the road to which it was entitled. A man by the name of Porter was driving a Ford V-8, coming down the grade on the righthand side of the road meeting defendant's car with the lights on. Just as the cars came close together, the defendant cut his car across the road towards Porter's car, striking it at the left front wheel. At the time of the impact, the Porter car was at the extreme right of the road and had almost come to a stop. The evidence for the defendant is somewhat in conflict with the above, but for the purposes of this decision it is not necessary for us to set it out in detail.

The only question of merit in this record is as to whether the defendant was driving his model T Ford recklessly and heedlessly, in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection, and at a speed or in a [169 So. 22.] manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property.

There are many decisions from courts of last resort drawing fine distinction as to what constitutes recklessness,...