Paschall v. Sharp
Decision Date | 28 October 1926 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 660 |
Parties | PASCHALL et al. v. SHARP. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O.A. Steele, Judge.
Action by Frank M. Sharp against Alice D. Paschall and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Affirmed.
Alto V Lee and W.T. Murphree, both of Gadsden, for appellants.
Culli Hunt & Culli, of Gadsden, for appellee.
This is an action by Frank M. Sharp against Alice D. Paschall and T E. Paschall, to recover damages for personal injuries received by him from a collision of an automobile with his buggy, on a public street in the city of Gadsden. The car was driven, at the time, by Sarah Paschall, daughter of the defendants, who was under 15 years of age. The buggy of plaintiff was demolished, his shoulder was dislocated, and he was otherwise bruised and permanently injured.
There were two counts in the complaint, numbered 1 and 4, that were submitted by the court to the jury. They returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, against the defendants, under count 4, and, from a judgment thereon by the court, the defendants prosecute this appeal and assign errors separately.
The court overruled demurrers of the defendants to count numbered 4. This count charges that on, to wit, 31st of December 1923, Sarah Paschall, a minor under 16 years of age, unaccompanied by an adult person, was running an automobile on the public streets of Gadsden, and negligently ran the automobile upon the plaintiff's buggy, in which he was riding on the street, and injured him and destroyed his buggy, and that
Any person under 16 years of age is conclusively presumed incompetent to drive an automobile on the public highways of Alabama; and any person who allows such a vehicle to be operated by a person, a minor, under 16 years of age, upon the public highways of this state, unaccompanied by an adult person, is guilty of negligence as a matter of law. Section 22 of Acts 1911 (Gen.Acts 1911, p. 643); Beville v. Taylor, 202 Ala. 305, 80 So. 370; Rush v. McDonnell, 214 Ala. 47, 106 So. 175, headnote 4, 5; section 6268, Code of 1923.
This count charges that the negligence of the defendants in allowing their daughter, a minor, under 16 years of age, to drive this automobile upon this public highway, unaccompanied by an adult person, combined with their daughter's negligently running the automobile against or upon the buggy of plaintiff, in this street of the city of Gadsden, caused the injuries to him. This count states a good cause of action against the defendants, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer to it. Rush v. McDonnell, 106 So. 175, 214 Ala. 47; Gardiner v. Solomon, 200 Ala. 115, 75 So. 621, L.R.A.1917F, 380; Beville v. Taylor, 202 Ala. 305, 80 So. 370; Parker v. Wilson, 179 Ala. 369, 60 So. 150, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 87.
Sarah was born on June 13, 1909, and was about 14 1/2 years of age at the time of the injury. It appears, from the evidence, that the mother of defendant directed her about dark on the 31st of December, 1923, to go and borrow some sugar. She got into this automobile, which belonged to her mother, went to town, and bought the sugar. The plaintiff was in his buggy driving on the right side of the street; Sarah was driving this automobile with no one therein with her, along the same street, in the same direction in which plaintiff was driving his horse in his buggy. It was near dark, and raining a little. Sarah ran the automobile into the rear of the buggy, broke it up, threw plaintiff out, and he was injured by his shoulder being dislocated and in other ways. Just before the collision, there was evidence that Sarah waved at some one passing on the sidewalk, and there was evidence to the contrary; and there was evidence that she did not see the buggy, or plaintiff, until the collision.
An X-ray picture of the shoulder was taken by Dr. Douglass after the physician, Dr. Faucett, in charge of the plaintiff, had put the shoulder in proper position. This X-ray picture was not in court, and its absence was not accounted for. Dr. Faucett, who saw this X-ray picture, was permitted, over objections by the defendants, to testify in answer to this question:
"What condition did it (the X-ray picture) show with reference to the shoulder?"
He answered:
The defendants moved to exclude the answer, on grounds it was secondary evidence and the best evidence was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bogen v. Bogen, 745.
...A.L.R. 1425; an immature infant, Tyree v. Tudor, 183 N.C. 340, 111 S.E. 714; 68 A.L.R. 1014; Rush v. McDonnell, supra; Paschall v. Sharp, 215 Ala. 304, 110 So. 387; Perry v. Sime-one, 197 Cal. 132, 239 P. 1056; Naudzius v. Lahr, 253 Mich. 216, 234 N.W. 581, 74 A.L.R. 1189; Annotations 36 A.......
-
Roark v. Stone
...Motor Vehicles, 42 C. J. , sec. 836, pp. 1078-9-10; Berry on Automobiles (3d), p. 1040; Huddy on Automobiles (6th) sec. 662; Paschall v. Sharp, 110 So. 387; Rush McDonald et al., 106 So. 175; La Rose v. Shaughnessy Ice Co., 189 N.Y.S. 562; Shulz v. Mottison, 154 N.Y.S. 257; Taylor v. Stewar......
-
Bogen v. Bogen
...50 A.L.R. 1425; an immature infant, Tyree v. Tudor, 183 N.C. 340, 111 S.E. 714; 68 A.L.R. 1014; Rush v. McDonnell, supra; Paschall v. Sharp, 215 Ala. 304, 110 So. 387; Perry v. Simeone, 197 Cal. 132, 239 P. Naudzius v. Lahr, 253 Mich. 216, 234 N.W. 581, 74 A.L.R. 1189; Annotations 36 A.L.R.......
-
United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Jones
...age forbidden by statute to drive, to operate a car has been held to constitute negligence on the part of the parent; Paschall v. Sharp, 1926, 215 Ala. 304, 110 So. 387; Repczynski v. Mikulak, 1927, 93 Ind.App. 491, 157 N.E. 464; Burrell v. Horchem, 1925, 117 Kan. 678, 232 P. 1042; Roark v.......