Lovelady v. Birmingham Ry. Light & Power Co.

Decision Date13 May 1909
Citation50 So. 96,161 Ala. 494
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1909.

Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; William Jackson, Judge.

Action by James C. Lovelady, as administrator, etc., against the Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Pinkney Scott and B. M. Allen, for appellant.

Tillman Grubb, Bradley & Morrow, for appellee.


This is an action by the appellant against the appellee street car company, brought under the homicide statute, to recover punitive damages for its wrongfully causing the death of plaintiff's intestate.

The complaint contained a great number of counts; some declaring on simple negligence, some on wanton negligence, and some on willful injury. Some of these counts were palpably bad, to which demurrers were interposed, but overruled as to all. To each count the defendant filed a great number of pleas general issue and special, to which special pleas demurrers were interposed, and sustained as to some and overruled as to others. Many of the rulings on the demurrers to the pleas were erroneous; but no questions as to the pleadings are raised or insisted upon. Hence we need not, and do not consider them.

A number of assignments of error as to the rulings on the evidence are insisted upon. Some of these are clearly good to wit, those which go to the question of refusing to allow plaintiff to prove, by the physician who treated the wounds of the intestate on the night of the injury, that intestate died that night from the effects of the injury. This, of course, was material, competent, and relevant evidence, and we can see no reason for refusal to allow it. Hence, in declining to allow plaintiff to make proof of this fact, in the manner and at the time he offered so to do, there was error.

Had the court allowed the plaintiff to prove that the person shown by the evidence to have been run over by defendant's car was plaintiff's intestate, and that he died of the injuries thus received, we are not prepared to say that there would not then have been sufficient evidence to authorize the jury to infer actionable negligence, as alleged; nor are we prepared to say that the evidence conclusivly showed negligence on the part of the intestate which proximately contributed to the injury. Therefore we cannot know that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Birmingham News Co. v. Payne
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1935
    ... ... render a verdict for plaintiff in a large sum, Birmingham ... Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Drennen, 175 Ala. 338, 57 ... So. 876, Ann.Cas.1914C, 1037; (4) arguments without ... Harless, 202 Ala. 317, ... 80 So. 399; Burleson v. Gillam, 205 Ala. 673, 89 So ... 36; Lovelady. v. Birmingham Railway, L. & P. Co., ... 161 Ala. 494, 50 So. 96; Kansas City, Memphis & ... ...
  • Supreme Lodge of the World, Loyal Order of Moose v. Gustin
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1918
    ... ... Burgin ... & Brown and Allen & Bell, all of Birmingham, and E.J ... Henning, of San Diego, Cal., for appellant ... cause of his (Gustin's) death. Lovelady v. B.R.L. & ... P. Co., 161 Ala. 494, 50 So. 96. The fact that a number ... "We have hereinbefore called attention to the power and ... authority given under the laws of the order to the officer ... ...
  • American National Insurance Company v. Mooney
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1914
    ...Ark. 585-589; 34 Ark. 383; 37 Ark. 562-571; 55 Ark. 163-180; 90 Ark. 272-277; 2 Dec. Dig. Appeal & Error, P 1056, § 1; 38 Cyc. 1450; 161 Ala. 494, 50 So. 96; N.E. 266; 79 N.E. 402; 96 N.Y.S. 116. The fact that the case was tried before a judge without a jury does not alter the rule. 62 P.57......
  • National Life Ins. Co. of America v. Hedgecoth
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • November 20, 1917
    ... ... 562; Southern Ry. Co. v. Hobbs, 151 ... Ala. 335, 43 So. 844; Lovelady v. B.R.L. & P. Co., ... 161 Ala. 494, 50 So. 96; Dixon v. State, 139 Ala ... ...
  • 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