Lambert v. Birmingham Electric Co.
Decision Date | 20 May 1943 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 130. |
Citation | 244 Ala. 333,13 So.2d 579 |
Parties | LAMBERT v. BIRMINGHAM ELECTRIC CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Harsh, Harsh & Hare and J. Haran Lowe, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Lange Simpson, Brantley & Robinson, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The appellant, plaintiff below, Miss Dora Lambert, sued the Birmingham Electric Company for damages on account of injuries received while she was alighting from a street car. Plaintiff's evidence tending to show that the doors were closed on her foot and that the car moved forward or jerked suddenly while she was still on the car but descending from the steps is conflicting, defendant's evidence tending to show that she fell after she reached the ground. Plaintiff's injuries consisted of a severe sprain of her left ankle and internal bleeding and persistent swelling. The jury found a verdict for the defendant. Motion for a new trial was overruled by the trial court.
The case was tried on the simple negligence count and a plea in short by consent including contributory negligence. The trial judge gave the general affirmative charge as to count B declaring for wantonness in operating the car from which plaintiff was alighting as a passenger.
The plaintiff Miss Dora Lambert testified that she was employed in Mansfield Hat Shop at Third Avenue and Eighteenth Street in Birmingham, Alabama, a position which required her to be constantly on her feet. That she got off from work at 6 o'clock on October 4, 1941, and boarded a street car operated by the Birmingham Electric Company as a passenger, paid her street car fare and just about the time the street car stopped at Ione Station she told the conductor she wanted to get off. The conductor was standing at the platform and the street car stopped and the doors were opened when she got to the door and the car was still. As she started to get off the street car she had one foot on the ground and the car gave a jerk and closed the door and caught her heel and jerked her back and threw her to the ground from the street car. She tried to get up, but was unable to stand and fell and struck her head against the telephone post. After plaintiff got to her destination she was carried to the hospital in an ambulance, her ankle was X-rayed and she was sent back home after the doctor had given her medicine to ease the pain. The foot began to swell and hemorrhaged. The doctor bandaged up her foot and she had to keep it elevated and had to stay in bed about three weeks with a cast upon her ankle. She had to walk on crutches for about two months, and was unable to go back to work until March 7, 1942, something like five months after she was injured. Her doctor's bill was $50 and she lost her wages of $15 a week for five months. She suffered pain for a long time and up until time of trial.
The plaintiff's brother W.T. Lambert and Mrs. Lambert testified they were at Ione Station at the time his sister was hurt, but were in his automobile and did not see the accident, and testified as to the condition of her ankle and her suffering as the result of the injury.
Joe Shelby, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that he was standing on the ground near where plaintiff fell; saw her get off the back end of the street car and stated he first saw her when she was on the step when she was fixing to make the next step off the street car and when she was in the motion of putting or fixing to put her foot down the street car jerked off, going forward, and she fell down by the post. He further testified that the street car conductor was about five feet from the door and he further testified that plaintiff was not hurrying off the street car, but was taking her time; that the motion of the car jerked plaintiff off.
Dr R.M. Kimbrough testified as to the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries; diagnosed her condition as a severe sprain of the ankle which requires treatment by immobilization in a cast; further that at the time of the trial, about seven months after the accident, her foot was still swelled. He described the injury as involving torn ligaments or muscles.
Mrs W.Z. Dennis, Mrs. Gardner H. Keller and Mrs. Claude Atcheson all testified about the nature and extent of plaintiff's injury.
Lula Shelby and Kate Dowdell testified for the plaintiff that she was standing on the ground near where plaintiff was hurt and that when plaintiff got to the bottom step to step to the ground from the street car, the street car jerked forward and it threw her off. Florence Brown testified that the car jerked as plaintiff was stepping off to the ground and threw her off the car.
J.M. Moore testified for the defendant that he was running the street car No. 229 on October 4, 1941, out-bound to Ione Station where there had been an accident and a man killed; that G.E. West was the conductor with him and that he had since died. He further testified that he, the motorman, operated the front and back doors manually with a lever and by means of his mirror he could see whether passengers were clear at the back door and that there was a mirror there that night and that he saw the lady get off at a time when the door was open and the street car standing. He further testified that the lady had passed out of his mirror vision before he did anything to the car and that he had not seen anything happen to her at that time and that he closed the door himself.
On cross-examination the witness stated: "You ask me whether I know of my own personal knowledge whether she fell of [off] the street car or not, and I answer I know she didn't fall. * * *" He testified further on cross-examination that: [Brackets supplied.]
Thereupon G.A. Murphy testified for the defendant that he was on the street car on the occasion which plaintiff was hurt at or near Ione Station; that he was by the window on the back platform and that,
And on cross-examination the witness Murphy testified as follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kendrick v. Birmingham Southern Ry. Co., 6 Div. 781
......992; Sington v. Birmingham R., L. & P. Co., 200 Ala. 282, 76 So. 48; Coleman v. Hamilton Storage Co., 235 Ala. 553, 180 So. 553; and Lambert v. Birmingham Electric Co., 244 Ala. 333, 13 So.2d 579, [254 Ala. 322] contain nothing to the contrary. In those cases there was no such similarity ......
-
Tyler v. Drennen
...the giving of charges which apply only to the count in simple negligence, if error, is error without injury. Lambert v. Birmingham Electric Company, 244 Ala. 333, 13 So.2d 579. In this connection we should, of course, review tendencies of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. Duke v......
-
Prince v. Bryant
...which excludes one theory of plaintiff's case which is supported by a scintilla of evidence, should be refused. Lambert v. Birmingham Electric Co., 244 Ala. 333, 13 So.2d 579; Woodward Iron Co. v. Brown, 167 Ala. 316, 52 So. 829; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Smith (Ala.), 40 So. 91. ......
-
Montgomery City Lines v. Scott
......In so doing the. charge was rendered improper. Lambert v. Birmingham. Electric Co., 244 Ala. 333(2), 13 So.2d 579; Montgomery. Light & Traction Co. v. ......