Prather v. Nashville Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 09 April 1970
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 624
• Citation: 286 Ala. 3,236 So.2d 322
• Parties: Dola T. PRATHER et al. v. NASHVILLE BRIDGE CO., a Corp.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 322

236 So.2d 322

286 Ala. 3

Dola T. PRATHER et al. v. NASHVILLE BRIDGE CO., a Corp.

6 Div. 624.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1970.

George S. Brown, Birmingham, for appellants.

Sadler, Sadler, Sullivan & Sharp, Birmingham, for appellee.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This case was brought under the provisions of Title 26, § 312, Code of Alabama, by the widow and dependents of decedent Duel Prather. The complaint claimed damages in the amount of $500,000 for injuries resulting in the death of Prather, charging defendant with negligence, in that while the said Duel Prather was working as a truck driver for the Alabama Freight Lines the defendant, at the Bessemer Galvanizing Works Division of the defendant, Nashville Bridge Company, a corporation, loaded a trailer truck being operated by Prather with twelve large and heavy sections of galvanized steel pipe and then and there undertook to secure same for delivery by Prather; and that after Prather had transported said load and while standing alongside said load, one of the sections of pipe fell off and onto Prather, causing him to suffer injuries from which he died.

The complaint went on to allege that the death of Prather was the proximate consequence of the negligent failure of the defendant to properly secure the steel pipe on the trailer truck.

The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs appealed, and while the brief sets out the evidence of each witness in narrative form, and runs to more than 190 pages, appellants concede at the outset that only two points are relied on for reversal. They are as follows:

First, that the judgment must be reversed because the court allowed members of the jury to put more than 100 different questions to various witnesses throughout the trial. No objection was interposed by either side to this interrogation of witnesses by members of the jury. It is conceded by counsel on both sides that no Alabama case has been found on this precise point. Our research has revealed none. The appellant contends that no objection was made because of fear and apprehension that the interposition of any objection would prejudice the objector's case with the jury. They rely on cases from other jurisdictions which have severely criticized the practice and reversed cases on this ground, even in the absence of objection. However, an annotation at 159 A.L.R. 347 indicates that a majority take a different view. It is there stated:

'While some courts have criticized the practice of allowing jurors to examine witnesses, in most cases the practice has either been approved, or the fact that such questions were asked, or permitted by the trial court, has been held not to constitute error. However, the manner of approval, or the language of the courts in concluding that the practice does not constitute error, is not entirely harmonious.'

The annotation goes on to analyze the rationale of the courts in dealing with this matter. Some have held that it is discretionary with the trial court; some have taken the position that the practice should be encouraged, while others take the position that it should be discouraged. While no cases in Alabama have dealt directly with the point, we are not without general authority for the disposition of the point here. Our cases have consistently held that where no objection is made, the trial court cannot be put in error. The appellate courts in Alabama review only such matters as were ruled on by the trial Court.--Ala.Dig. 2, Appeal & Error, k No. 206(2). Hence, we do not reach the question of whether error would have resulted had proper objection been made and overruled to the questions put by members of the jury.

We believe the statement made by the Missouri court in Ray v. Collins, Mo.App., 274 S.W. 1098, is consistent with Alabama law:

'In the trial of the case, while one of the defendants was testifying, a juror was permitted, at his own request, to ask him certain questions. Appellants contend this was error, though no objection to the question was made at the time. Appellants seek to excuse themselves for not objecting upon the ground that, if objection were made, it would prejudice the mind of the jury against them. That may be true, but we know of no rule of law which will convict a trial court of error for admitting testimony to which no objection is made. Appellants could have the matter (sic) by an instruction from the court, even if they did fear to make an objection when the testimony was offered. They could have asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard the testimony thus elucidated, and this instruction, coming from the court, would not result in prejudice against defendants in the minds of the jurors.'

The only other point raised by appellants is based upon the refusal of the trial court to give certain requested written charges. Plaintiffs here sued Nashville Bridge Company. Their contention was that although the loading of the truck had been done by Bessemer Galvanizing Works, the latter was a wholly owned subsidiary of Nashville Bridge Company and wholly controlled by Nashville Bridge Company. On this issue the trial court charged the jury as follows:

'* * * Nashville Bridge Company denies everything that is stated in the Plaintiff's complaint, among other things, denying the averment that the Nashville Bridge Company caused the trailer to be loaded with the pipe, and further specifically denying there was any negligence on the part of the person who loaded the truck and trailer. * * *

'Insofar as the responsibility of the warrent (sic, parent) corporation, Nashville Bridge Company, and as far as Bessemer Galvanizing Works is concerned, the law is this, a parent corporation is responsible for the conduct of the subsidiary, but only is (sic, if) the warrent (sic, parent) controls the subsidiary to such an extent that the subsidiary becomes an (sic, and) is what is called a mere instrumentality of the parent. With reference to the complaint of the plaintiff that the Bessemer Galvanizing Works was a mere instrumentality of the Nashville Bridge Company, the Plaintiff has the burden of reasonably satisfying you of the truth of this...