Horace v. VanBlaricon

• Decision Date: 27 September 1973
• Citation: 291 Ala. 530,283 So.2d 421
• Parties: James E. HORACE v. Ronnie Clay VanBLARICON. SC 380.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 421

283 So.2d 421

291 Ala. 530

James E. HORACE v. Ronnie Clay VanBLARICON.

SC 380.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 27, 1973.

Kenneth R. Cain, Ozark, for appellant.

Cassady & Fuller, Enterprise, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Coffee County by the plaintiff who suffers from an adverse jury verdict and denial by the trial court of his motion for a new trial. We affirm.

The plaintiff, James E. Horace, filed suit against Ronnie VanBlaricon in the Circuit Court of Coffee County on October 31, 1970 claiming damages for personal injury, loss of income and property damage. This action stems from an automobile collision at or near the intersection of Lee and Edwards Streets in Enterprise.

The lead car slowed to make a right turn off Lee Street into the driveway leading into a parking lot. Freeman Brunson, driver of the second car, testified that he applied his brakes in order to avoid impact with the turning car. The third vehicle, a pick-up truck, was driven by Horace. The testimony is disputed as to whether he made a slow stop or a quick stop in order to avoid colliding with the Brunson car. The fourth car driven by Ronnie VanBlaricon, the defendant crashed into the rear of the third vehicle driven by Horace. The testimony is disputed whether VanBlaricon was following too closely to make a safe stop. At the scene of the accident Horace claimed no personal injuries, but later claimed severe injuries and loss of income as well as property damage. The verdict of the jury was in favor of the defendant.

Horace assigns as error the action of the trial court in overruling his motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and that the verdict was not sustained by the great preponderance of the evidence.

This court has said in Cobb v. Malone & Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 635, 9 So. 738, 740 (1891):

'. . . But when there is evidence on both sides, or some evidence to support the verdict, it should not be set aside, because it may not correspond with the opinion of the court as to the weight of the testimony, or because it is against the more preponderance of the evidence. Comparing the analogous rules above stated, and the rules established by other appellate courts, we deduce therefrom, and lay down as rules for the guidance of this court, that the decision of the trial court, refusing to grant a new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, or that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, will not be reversed, unless, after allowing all reasonable presumptions of its correctness, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince the court that it is wrong and unjust.'

We will not attempt to set out all the evidence, but the testimony is disputed on the issues of whether the defendant was guilty of negligence in driving too closely behind plaintiff and also whether plaintiff was negligent in stopping or suddenly decreasing the speed of his truck.

On careful reading of the evidence, we are not clearly convinced that the verdict is contrary to the great weight of the evidence or that the verdict is wrong and unjust.

Horace also contends in his first four assignments of error that the trial court erred in not granting a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law. An assignment of error that the judgment or the verdict is contrary to law is not an adequate assignment of error because only adverse rulings of the trial court are subject...