Putman v. White
| Citation | 18 Ala.App. 15,88 So. 355 |
| Decision Date | 09 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 659 |
| Parties | PUTMAN v. WHITE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C.P. Almon, Judge.
Action by W.L. White against Thomas Putman for damages for setting fire. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Simpson & Simpson, of Florence, for appellant.
A.A Williams, of Florence, for appellee.
The complaint contained two counts, which will be set out in a report of the case.
Count 1 was not subject to the demurrers assigned thereto. Ala G.S.R. Co. v. Johnston, 128 Ala. 283, 29 So. 771; L & N.R.R. v. Smith, 163 Ala. 141, 50 So. 241; Ala. G.S.R.R. v. Davenport, 195 Ala. 368, 70 So. 674; Tarrance v. Chapman, 196 Ala. 88, 71 So. 707.
The averments of count 2 are not sufficient to constitute it a count in wanton negligence, and was subject to the demurrers assigned thereto. So. Ry. v. Weatherlow, 153 Ala. 171, 44 So. 1019; Ala. G.S.R.R. v. Smith, 191 Ala. 643, 68 So. 56. This was no more than a count in simple negligence.
A person who sets out fire on his own premises is responsible for injury or damage due to failure on his part to use prudence, reasonable care, and caution in kindling the fire and in keeping it from spreading to the land of another. Edwards v. Massingill, 3 Ala.App. 406, 57 So. 400; McNally v. Colwell, 91 Mich. 527, 52 N.W. 70, 30 Am.St.Rep. 494; Hanlon v. Ingram, 1 Iowa, 108; Hewey v. Nourse, 54 Me. 256; Dewey v. Leonard, 14 Minn. 153 (Gil. 120); Johnson v. Barber, 5 Gilman (Ill.) 425, 50 Am.Dec. 416.
The overruling, however, of the demurrers to count 2, appears not to have worked harm or injury to the appellant, for the trial court charged the jury that the defendant was required to exercise ordinary care and prudence in watching the barn, or in putting out the fire to prevent setting the barn on fire, and, in case they should find for the plaintiff, the measure of damages would be the reasonable and fair cash market value of the property destroyed from the testimony in the case. The jury was in no wise charged as to punitive damages.
The evidence showed that the barn was burned on the 4th of March, 1918; that it together with other buildings was on a 60-acre tract of land owned by plaintiff. There was clearly no error in sustaining plaintiff's objection to the question on cross-examination "whether he assessed the place for taxation for the year 1917 and for what sum." This was not the proper way to prove the market value of the farm at the time it was burned, or at any other time.
On cross-examination a witness for plaintiff was asked "if he considered it a matter of danger to put fire to a tree at that distance from the barn." In the first place there was no contention that the tree was negligently fired, but that the negligence was occasioned, by allowing or permitting the fire from the tree to be communicated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kingry v. McCardle, 4 Div. 857
...in no way instructed as to willful or wanton conduct, or as to the damages arising from such conduct. In the case of Putman v. White, 18 Ala. App. 15, 88 So. 355, 357, as in this case, there was one count charging simple negligence, and a second count charging willful or wanton misconduct. ......
-
Cox v. Hunter
...let a fire go to the abutting land is pertinent here, particularly as to the plaintiff describing himself as 'owner,' Putman v. White, 18 Ala.App. 15, 88 So. 355. In George v. Fisk & Norcross, 32 N.H. 32, a declaration in case to recover damages to land by overflow of waters dammed up by de......
-
State v. Griffith
...proper to exclude on plaintiff's cross-examination a question whether his barn was assessed for taxation and how much. Putman v. White, 18 Ala.App. 15, 88 So. 355(5). 'There was no error in sustaining the objection to the question asked the tax assessor concerning the amount at which one of......
- Roberson v. State