Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Holman
| Decision Date | 10 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 14 |
| Citation | 273 Ala. 371,141 So.2d 180 |
| Parties | MOBILE CITY LINES, INC. v. Louela HOLMAN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Johnston & Johnston, Mobile, for appellant.
M. A. Marsal, Mobile, for appellee.
Suit for damages by appellee against appellant. Judgment in favor of appellee for $28,000 on jury verdict--hence this appeal.
Appellee was a passenger on one of appellant's buses on February 6, 1960, at a bus stop on Royal Street near the intersection of Dauphin Street. When the bus started to cross Dauphin Street the plaintiff had not yet seated herself. A pedestrian stepped into the path of the bus and the driver pulled the bus to a sudden stop, causing appellee to fall and injure herself.
The assignments of error, in addition to claiming excessiveness of damages, are the giving of one charge requested by plaintiff and the refusal of several charges requested by defendant. We do not consider all these assignments of error, since the conclusion seems inescapable to us that the learned trial court committed reversible error in giving the charge requested by the plaintiff.
The charge given for the plaintiff reads:
'The Court charges the Jury that if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the Defendant corporation was guilty of negligence in and about the operation of the bus on which the Plaintiff was a passenger, the plaintiff is entitled to recover.'
Manifestly the charge was prejudicially erroneous in omitting that the alleged negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Horn, 37 Ala.App. 220, 66 So.2d 202; Johnson v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 220 Ala. 649, 127 So.2d 216; Harris v. Schmaeling, 270 Ala. 547, 120 So.2d 731; Zemczonek v. McElroy, 264 Ala. 258, 86 So.2d 824; Mobile City Lines v. Proctor, 272 Ala. 217, 130 So.2d 388. Many other cases could be cited.
But appellee argues that the charge was merely incomplete and that a subsequent explanation by the court that 'This of course is predicated on if you also believe that she suffered injuries and damages as a proximate result of the negligence', cured the error. The argument is untenable. The charge was not merely incomplete, it was positively erroneous.
Code 1940, Title 7, § 273, provides:
'Charges moved for by either party must be in writing, and must be given or refused in the terms in which they are written; * * *.'
From an early time this Court, in construing this language in the predecessor s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maslankowski v. Beam
...and incomplete but prejudicially erroneous. Matheny v. Petersen, 276 Ala. 478, 163 So.2d 635 (1964); Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Holman, 273 Ala. 371, 141 So.2d 180 (1962); Terry v. Nelms, 256 Ala. 291, 54 So.2d 282 (1951). For a recent discussion of the omission of 'proximate cause' from a ......
-
Aggregate Limestone Co. v. Robison
...law of torts, viz.: 'proximate cause'. This omission resulted in prejudicial error and necessitates a reversal.--Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Holman, 273 Ala. 371, 141 So.2d 180. See also: Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Horn, 37 Ala.App. 220, 66 So.2d 202; Johnson v. Louisville & Nashville R. ......
-
Swindall v. Speigner
...simply misleading, it should have been refused because no explanation or qualification of it could make it good. Mobile City Lines v. Holman, 273 Ala. 371, 373, 141 So.2d 180. If, however, plaintiff's charge 1 was merely incomplete and, therefore, misleading, giving it was not reversible er......
-
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Lee
...v. Beam, 288 Ala. 254, 259 So.2d 804 (1972); Swindall v. Speigner, 283 Ala. 84, 214 So.2d 436 (1968); Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Holman, 273 Ala. 371, 141 So.2d 180 (1962); Matheny v. Petersen, 276 Ala. 478, 163 So.2d 635 (1964); Terry v. Nelms, 256 Ala. 291, 54 So.2d 282 Assignment of Erro......