Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville
Decision Date | 06 December 1928 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 17 |
Parties | MORGAN HILL PAVING CO. v. FONVILLE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1929
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C.B. Smith, Judge.
Action for damages for personal injuries by W.D. Fonville against the Morgan Hill Paving Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Requested charge to deny recovery for injuries by failure to maintain lights on detour sign, if sign contained lighted lantern held properly refused; question being whether light was sufficient.
Count 4 of the complaint is as follows:
Pleas 3, 5, 6, and A are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Graves v. Johnson
... ... 597; McWhorter v. Draughn, 137 Miss. 515, 102 So ... 567; Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, 119 So ... 610; Owens v. Fowler, 32 F.2d ... ...
-
Kelly v. Hanwick
... ... warn or restrain the driver. Morgan-Hill Paving Co. v ... Fonville, 218 Ala. 566, 576, 119 So. 610; ... ...
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Maddox
...119 So. 610, 622. See, also, Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Courson, 234 Ala. 273, 174 So. 474, 476. In the case of Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, supra, is found quotation from Dr. Joseph H. Beale to the effect that "When one is responsible for the operation (a) of an active forc......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Edwards
...tortfeasor law is that, as alluded to above, an injury may have several concurrent proximate causes, Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, 218 Ala. 566, 119 So. 610 (1928), including the actions of two or more tortfeasors, neither of whose action was sufficient in and of itself to produce the......