McQueen v. Jones
Decision Date | 25 November 1932 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 997. |
Citation | 145 So. 440,226 Ala. 4 |
Parties | MCQUEEN v. JONES. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1932.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; Thos. E. Knight, Judge.
Action for damages for personal injuries by Lula Mae Jones against Hugh I. McQueen. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
The complaint alleges that "plaintiff was a guest of defendant, and riding as such in an automobile," the property of defendant, "and defendant did so negligently drive said automobile on a highway in Elmore county, Alabama at a crossroad near the store of F. M. Thrash between Eclectic and Martin Lake, that as a proximate consequence of said negligence, the automobile collided with another automobile then and there on said highway, and as a proximate result of said negligence, plaintiff, who was at the time of said collision still a guest of defendant, and still riding as such in said automobile of defendant, sustained" the injuries described. And it is further averred that "all of which injury and loss plaintiff avers she suffered as a proximate consequence of the said negligence of defendant wherefore this suit."
On the trial plaintiff's attorney stated that he noted on the jury list the names of insurance men and moved the court to qualify the jury as to any connection with or employment by the Continental Casualty Company. Defendant objected to the motion and moved for a continuance on the ground that there was no proof that any insurance company was interested in, or a party to, the issues in the case; that it was prejudicial to defendant's rights, made for the purpose of prejudicing the jury, the same having been made in the presence and hearing of the jury.
The trial court overruled the defendant's objection and proceeded to qualify the jury in accordance with the motion.
London Yancey & Brower, of Birmingham, and Harry W. Gamble, of Selma, for appellant.
S. F Hobbs, of Selman, for appellee.
The suit was for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as a guest in defendant's car.
The complaint sufficiently stated the cause of action and established duty to the guest in the car (Perkins v. Galloway, 194 Ala. 269, 69 So. 875, L. R. A. 1916E, 1190; Thomas v. Carter, 218 Ala. 55, 117 So. 634; Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, 218 Ala. 566, 575, 119 So. 610; Wurtzburger v. Oglesby, 222 Ala. 151, 131 So. 9), and charged negligence in general terms-the negligent driving of the car and as a proximate consequence the car collided with another car, causing the injury. This pleading was not within the rule of cases requiring that the act averred must show and amount to negligence. Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, 198 Ala. 590, 73 So. 933; Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Littleton, 201 Ala. 141, 77 So. 565; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Baker, 219 Ala. 324, 122 So. 316; Jackson v. Vaughn, 204 Ala. 543, 86 So. 469; Birmingham Rwy., L. & P. Co. v. Wilcox, 181 Ala. 512, 61 So. 908.
There was no error in sustaining objections to the questions to Holley, "I asked him if it was possible to see this little road when coming down the highway?" and "I will ask you whether or not there was sufficient space behind that Chevrolet for McQueen's car to pass?" The witness had stated the facts, locations, and elevations of the road and the cornfield and embankment adjacent thereto. The questions were leading. However, there was no error for that the witness stated the facts and was permitted to say:
The shorthand rendition of facts sought by the two questions to Holley to which the plaintiff's objections were sustained (Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. Linn, 103 Ala. 134, 15 So. 508; Jones v. Keith, 223 Ala. 36, 134 So. 630; Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, 218 Ala. 566, 119 So. 610; Id., 222 Ala. 120, 130 So. 807), if error, was therefore cured by the answers of that witness detailing the facts of the locus in quo. And no reversible error was presented by these rulings.
The several objections and exceptions taken to the testimony of the witness McQueen present no reversible error, for that the witness was likewise permitted to detail the facts-as of the location of the road, obstructions, or the lack thereof, the distances of the cars and locations on the two roads before and at the time of the impact.
The driver of the car-Mr. McQueen-was cross-examined as to the place of the accident, and testified as follows:
The defendant sought to ask witness (McQueen) on redirect examination, "You don't mean to tell the jury that the right hand side of the road was clear," and "That Chevrolet didn't leave enough space for you to go behind it did it?" Thus the defendant sought to have the witness explain what he meant by the use of the words "the right hand half of the road was unobstructed," and whether the space on the right hand was room enough to pass or not. These questions are justified in their refusal as leading.
The remarks of counsel to which exceptions were taken were properly excluded, the jury instructed not to observe or be influenced by the same, and the bill of exceptions concluded, as to this: "The Court, then after getting such assurance from each of the jurors, overruled the motion of defendant, and the defendant then and there duly and legally excepted."
There was no error in declining to take the case from the jury. The rule of our decisions as to improper arguments and motions are understood, and need not be repeated. Moulton v. State, 199 Ala. 411, 414, 74 So. 454; Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 287, 61 So. 80, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 543; Carter v. State, 219 Ala. 670, 123 So. 50; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 212 Ala. 212, 102 So. 130; Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co. v. Grauer, 212 Ala. 197, 102 So. 125; Feore v. Trammel, 212 Ala. 325, 102 So. 529; Burns v. State (Ala. Sup.) 145 So. 436; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 44, 95 So. 171; Tennessee River Nav. Co. v. Walls, 209 Ala. 320, 96 So. 266; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409, 96 So. 187; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Ryder (Ala. Sup.) 144 So. 18, and authorities cited; Lutie Patton Pryor, as G'd'n v. Limestone County (Ala. Sup.) 144 So. 18.
The suggestion of qualification of the jurors with regard to their relations to, or interest in, the Continental Casualty Company, does not present reversible error, though the motion was made in the presence of the jury. Gammill v. Culverhouse, 217 Ala. 65, 114 So....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cox v. Roberts
... ... Gaines, 224 Ala. 519, 140 So. 600; Faulkner v ... Gilchrist, 225 Ala. 391, 143 So. 803; McCaleb v ... Reed, 225 Ala. 564, 144 So. 28; McQueen v ... Jones, 226 [248 Ala. 378] Ala. 4, 145 So. 440; Jones ... v. Pritchett, 232 Ala. 611, 169 So. 224; Wilson v ... State, 243 Ala. 1, 8 So.2d ... ...
-
Carroll v. State
...supported by stated facts upon which the conclusions were hypothesized. Haas Bros. v. Craft, 9 Ala.App. 404, 64 So. 163; McQueen v. Jones, 226 Ala. 4, 145 So. 440. Over general grounds of objections the court allowed in evidence some pictures taken of appellant's automobile after the collis......
-
Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Yeldell
...v. State, 147 Ala. 27, 41 So. 973; Barney v. State, 5 Ala.App. 302, 57 So. 598; Roden v. State, 3 Ala.App. 193, 58 So. 74; McQueen v. Jones, 226 Ala. 4, 145 So. 440; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Hill, 93 Ala. 514, 9 So. 722; Shewbart v. State, 33 Ala.App. 195, 32 So.2d 241; Walker v. St......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Courson, 6 Div. 951
... ... Co. v. Stagg, 196 Ala. 612, 72 So. 164; Buffalo Rock ... Co. v. Davis, 228 Ala. 603, 154 So. 556; McQueen v ... Jones, 226 Ala. 4, 145 So. 440 ... The ... "time and place of injury" cases cited, as to ... injury to animals (Louisville & ... ...