Plylar v. Jones

Decision Date27 April 1922
Docket Number6 Div. 650.
Citation92 So. 445,207 Ala. 372
PartiesPLYLAR v. JONES.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; T. L. Sowell, Judge.

Action by B. G. Jones against George Plylar, for damages to person and property in an automobile collision. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.

L. D Gray, of Jasper, for appellant.

Lacy Lacy & Shepherd, of Jasper, for appellee.

MILLER J.

B. G Jones sues George Plylar to recover damages suffered by him personally and for injuries to his automobile from a collision between their automobiles. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. There is no bill of exceptions. The appeal is on the record.

Demurrers were overruled to counts 1 and 3 as amended of the complaint, and these rulings are assigned as errors. These counts charge simple negligence.

Each count avers that defendant negligently ran his automobile into plaintiff's automobile, causing the injury, while plaintiff was operating his automobile in "a road or highway which was used and traveled over by the public and over which plaintiff and the public had the right to travel, in or near the town of Parrish." These counts aver that plaintiff had a right to travel where he was injured; that it was in a road or highway traveled over by the public, and where the plaintiff and the public had the right to travel. This is sufficient to show that plaintiff was not a trespasser at the time on the property of the defendant, and that a duty was owed him by the defendant to use due care not to injure him there. Ala. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Bush, 204 Ala. 658, 86 So. 541. These counts aver the injury occurred in a road or highway used and traveled by the public, and over which the plaintiff and public had a right to travel. Under this averment defendant owed plaintiff the duty not to negligently injure him or his property there. These counts aver a negligent breach of that duty by the defendant, and one count avers plaintiff's automobile, and the other count that his person, was injured as a proximate result thereof. These counts are sufficient under demurrers, and the court did not err in overruling them. Ala. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Bush, 204 Ala. 658, 86 So. 541.

The court did not err in refusing the motion of the defendant to strike the following words from counts 1 and 2 of the complaint:

"That prior to and at the time said plaintiff's automobile had been and was used by plaintiff in the business of carrying passengers for hire," and "has been and will continue to be deprived of the use of his said automobile in his
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Austin v. Tennessee Biscuit Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1951
    ...value of the automobile immediately before the accident and its market value immediately after. Blackmon v. Gilmer, supra; Plylar v. Jones, 207 Ala. 372, 92 So. 445. The difference between the value of an automobile before and after an injury may be shown by proof of a reasonable cost of re......
  • Hunt v. Ward
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1955
    ...above. See, Mobile Light & Power Co. v. Gadik, 211 Ala. 582, 100 So. 837; Blackmon v. Gilmer, 221 Ala. 554, 130 So. 192; Plylar v. Jones, 207 Ala. 372, 92 So. 445; Southern Ry. Co. v. Reeder, 152 Ala. 227, 44 So. If the owner of the damaged truck abandons it and buys another for his own use......
  • Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Gadik
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1924
    ... ... v. Reeder, 152 Ala ... 227, 44 So. 699, 126 Am. St. Rep. 23, involving injury to a ... steamboat by contact with a drawbridge. See, also, Plylar ... v. Jones, 207 Ala. 372, 92 So. 445 ... If the ... trial court undertakes by instructions to the jury to itemize ... the elements ... ...
  • Wilson & Co. v. Sims
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1948
    ...to make such repairs and fit it for business. Southern Ry. Co. v. Reeder, 152 Ala. 227, 236, 44 So. 699, 126 Am.St.Rep. 23; Plylar v. Jones, 207 Ala. 372, 92 So. 445. seems to be the rule in most of the jurisdictions. 4 A.L.R. 1352, Annotation a; 1355 b; 78 A.L.R. 911, Annotation a, 912 b. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT