Newman v. Lee, 7 Div. 28.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 28. |
| Citation | 222 Ala. 499,133 So. 10 |
| Parties | NEWMAN ET AL. v. LEE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O. A. Steele, Judge.
Action for damages by J. G. Lee against Leon Newman and O. Newman, individually and doing business under the style of Newman Produce Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Transferred from Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
W. T. Starnes, of Pell City, for appellants.
Frank B. Embry, of Pell City, for appellee.
Appellee recovered a judgment against appellants for damages resulting from a collision between a car driven by plaintiff and a truck of defendants. The affirmative charge was not due defendants because of the failure to prove the existence of the partnership which the complaint alleged to exist between defendants, because there was no plea which required such proof. Section 7665, Code.
Though the violation of an ordinance may be negligence per se, it will not support an action for damages nor be a defense to one unless it proximately contributed to the injury. Watts v. Montgomery Traction Co., 175 Ala. 102, 57 So. 471; Cooper v. Agee (Ala. Sup.) 132 So. 173.
It may not be error to charge the jury that such a violation is negligence per se (Smith v. Baggett, 218 Ala. 227, 118 So. 283); but it does not follow that therefore the defense of contributory negligence is established, and that defendant is due a verdict as stated in refused charge No. 2, for that follows only from a further finding that the violation of the ordinance was a proximate contributing cause of the accident, as well as that it was enacted for the benefit of the one claiming under it. Watts v. Montgomery Traction Co., supra; Ivey v. Marx, 205 Ala. 60, 87 So. 813, 14 A. L. R. 1173; Salter v. Carlisle, 206 Ala. 163, 90 So. 283; Birmingham v. Mauzey, 214 Ala. 476, 108 So. 382; Cooper v. Agee, supra.
The court charged the jury correctly as to plaintiff's contributory negligence, and we find no error in refusing charge No. 2.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prince v. Lowe, 5 Div. 601
...it would still remain a question for the jury as to whether violation of the statute proximately contributed to her injury. Newman v. Lee, 222 Ala. 499, 133 So. 10; Newell Contracting Co. v. Berry, 223 Ala. 109, 134 So. 'The case of Alabama Power Co. v. Buck, 250 Ala. 618, 35 So.2d 355, is ......
-
Somerville v. Keller
...993; Clisby v. M. & O. Railroad Company, 78 Miss. 937, 29 So. 913; Hossley v. Union Indemnity Company, 137 Miss. 537, 102 So. 56; Newman v. Lee, 133 So. 10; Heidel Baldwin, 118 Ohio St. 375, 385, 161 N.E. 44, 58 A.L.R. 1186; Parker v. Wilson, 60 So. 150, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 87, 90. Of course, ......
-
Tyler v. Drennen
...v. Flowers, 249 Ala. 227, 30 So.2d 694. Assignment 15. There was no error in giving charge 14 requested by the appellee. In Newman v. Lee, 222 Ala. 499, 133 So. 10, the charge was held bad because it omitted mention of the necessary element of proximate cause. It is not authority for the po......
-
City of Birmingham v. Blood
...153 So. 430 228 Ala. 218 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. BLOOD. 6 Div. 451.Supreme Court of AlabamaMarch 8, 1934 ... Appeal ... from ... 102, 57 So. 471; Cooper v. Agee, 222 Ala. 334, ... 132 So. 173; Newman v. Lee, 222 Ala. 499, 133 So ... 10; McCaleb v. Reed, 225 Ala. 564, 144 ... ...