Johnston v. Warrant Warehouse Co.

Decision Date24 April 1924
Docket Number1 Div. 317.
Citation99 So. 920,211 Ala. 165
PartiesJOHNSTON v. WARRANT WAREHOUSE CO.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Claude A. Grayson, Judge.

Action for damages by Kate T. Johnston against the Warrant Warehouse Company for personal injuries, etc., resulting from a collision by defendant's truck with plaintiff's automobile. Judgment for plaintiff for an insufficient amount, and she appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.

Smiths Young, Leigh & Johnston, of Mobile, for appellant.

Webb &amp Shepard, of Mobile, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

Plaintiff's automobile and defendant's auto truck were in collision at the corner of Conti and Hamilton streets in the city of Mobile, with result that plaintiff suffered bodily injuries and her automobile was damaged. Plaintiff's complaint declared as for (1) simple negligence and (2) wanton wrong. From a verdict and judgment in her favor plaintiff prosecutes this appeal, contending that the trial court committed errors in rulings affecting the measure of damages claimed.

The fact that immediately upon the happening of the accident plaintiff "yelled"-to use the language of the witness, her daughter-"My back!" should have been admitted in evidence, as this court by analogy has frequently held. But the only tendency of the excluded evidence was to prove the fact that plaintiff's back had been hurt, and that was proved without dispute, so that we are unwilling to predicate reversible error of the court's ruling against this evidence.

Plaintiff's witness, her daughter, testified that "the night after the injury she [plaintiff] was not able to move or turn over," but this testimony was excluded on motion. Then, to quote the bill of exceptions, "the witness, continuing, stated"-whether in answer to specific interrogatory or not, does not appear-"that her mother complained dreadfully all night, and that the reason the witness said she could not turn over was that she had to help her over." To this "last statement" defendant objected; the court sustained the objection; and plaintiff excepted. Witness' reason for her statement in evidence was clearly inadmissible; and, further, the witness afterwards testified to the fact that "she had to turn her mother over," thereby removing any possibility of harm from the error. We are not of opinion that defendant's objection to the witness' "last statement" brought into question the testimony of the witness to the effect that "her mother complained dreadfully all night," or that plaintiff's exception, construed against her as it must be, has served to bring into review in this court the competency of that testimony. Moreover, the witness' characterization of plaintiff's complaining justified the ruling. She should have been required to state plain facts, as was done in Phillips v. Kelly, 29 Ala. 628.

Moreover, again, and apart from what has thus far been said, it is entirely clear upon the whole record that plaintiff got her case fully before the jury in every respect. Her injuries and their alleged consequences were described in completest detail, so that we can scarcely conceive that the testimony heretofore considered, if...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1927
    ... ... and not an error on which a reversal may be rested ... Johnston v. Warrant Warehouse Co., 211 Ala. 165, 99 ... So. 920; Portsmouth, etc., Co. v. Madrid, etc., ... ...
  • Burdett v. Hipp
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1949
    ... ... Supreme Court Rule 45 Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix; ... Johnston v. Warrant Warehouse Co., 211 Ala. 165, 99 ... So. 920; Turbeville v. Mobile Light & R. Co., 221 ... ...
  • Robinson v. Morrison
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1961
    ...to the wanton count. See Salter v. Carlisle, 206 Ala. 163, 90 So. 283; Johnson v. King, 260 Ala. 497, 71 So.2d 60; Johnston v. Warrant Warehouse Co., 211 Ala. 165, 99 So. 920. Appellant next contends that reversible error was committed when the trial court refused to admit proffered evidenc......
  • Conway v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1927
    ... ... that there was no error at this point. Johnston v ... Warrant Warehouse Co., 211 Ala. 165, 99 So. 920, ... referred to by appellant in this ... ...
  • 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