Penton v. Penton
Decision Date | 18 June 1931 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 969. |
Citation | 223 Ala. 282,135 So. 481 |
Parties | PENTON v. PENTON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.
Action for damages for personal injuries by Elizabeth Penton against George W. Penton. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Rushton Crenshaw & Rushton, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Hill Hill, Whiting, Thomas & Rives, of Montgomery, for appellee.
The suit is for personal injuries by the wife against the husband.
Each count of the complaint is for simple negligence. The first count sets up that plaintiff was driving defendant's automobile on a public road, and the defendant was riding with the plaintiff upon the front seat of said automobile and "then and there the defendant negligently interfered with the plaintiff in her operation of said automobile and thereby as the proximate result and consequence thereof, said automobile was caused to overturn and plaintiff received severe personal injuries," etc. In the second count, the allegation is, "and then and there the defendant negligently grabbed the steering wheel of said automobile and interfered with the plaintiff in and about the operation of said automobile and thereby and as the proximate result and consequence thereof, said automobile was caused to overturn," etc.
The defendant filed pleas in short by consent, (1) the general issue, and (2) contributory negligence. There was a jury and verdict for damages and judgment rendered accordingly; hence the appeal.
The plaintiff was the only witness as to the facts of the accident. Her testimony was that on Sunday November 3, 1929, about 10:30 in the morning, she was driving an automobile on a public road in this county, about a quarter of a mile this side of the river bridge, headed towards Wetumpka. At that place there was a high fill on either side of the road-that is, the road was upon a fill and there was a ditch on either side; the ground was lower. (Italics supplied.)
Counsel then asked the witness the following question: "In your best judgment, did you have the car under control?"
Defendant objected on the ground that said question called for a statement of opinion, was invasive of the province of the jury, and called for a conclusion. The court overruled the objection, and defendant duly excepted.
The answer was:
Plaintiff then changed the question to the following: "In your best judgment, you had control of the car up to that time, you say?"
Counsel for defendant objected on the ground that said question called for a conclusion of the witness, a statement of an opinion, and was invasive of the province of the jury. The court overruled the objection, to which ruling the defendant then and there duly excepted.
The witness answered: etc. (Italics supplied.)
Plaintiff then described her injuries, sickness, and suffering, which were grievous and of long duration. On cross-examination she said that her injuries were shown to be permanent; that "Mr. Penton, the defendant here, is my husband."
After physicians and nurses had testified to her injuries, the plaintiff was recalled to the stand for further cross-examination, and testified:
On cross-examination by defendant, she testified:
To question by her own counsel, she said:
The bill of exceptions states that the foregoing was substantially all of the evidence introduced by either party in said cause.
The refused charges to defendant were: "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you believe the evidence in this case you cannot find for the plaintiff on either count of the complaint," and separate affirmative charges as to count 1 and count 2 of the complaint.
After verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant made a motion for a new trial on the following grounds:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moser v. Hampton
... ... 1214 (1977); Comment, 27 Ohio St.L.J. 550 (1966) ... 5 Twenty-nine jurisdictions have fully abolished the rule: Alabama: Penton v. Penton, 223 Ala. 282, 135 So. 481 (1931); Alaska: Cramer v. Cramer, 379 P.2d 95 (Alaska 1963); Arizona: Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 646 ... ...
-
Peggy Baker Estes v. Phillip Estes
... ... Freehe v. Freehe (1972), 81 Wash.2d 183, 500 P.2d 771 ... Footnote ... 3 .Alabama: Penton v. Penton (1931), 223 Ala. 282, 135 So ... 481; Alaska: Cramer v. Cramer (Alaska, 1963), 379 P.2d 95; ... Arkansas: Katzenberg v ... ...
-
United States v. Moore
... ... 372, 282 A.2d 351 (1971) ... STATES WHICH HAVE ABOLISHED INTERSPOUSAL IMMUNITY ONLY: ... ALABAMA: Penton" v. Penton, 223 Ala. 282, 135 So. 481 (1931) ... ARKANSAS: Leach v. Leach, 227 Ark. 599, 300 S.W.2d 15 (1957) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Aaron v. State
... ... It is unnecessary to reproduce the recent decisions on this question, or restate the wellunderstood rule. Penton v. Penton, 223 Ala. 282, 135 So. 481; Jones v. Keith, 223 Ala. 36, 134 So. 630; Yates v. Barnett, 215 Ala. 554, 112 ... ...