Rooks v. Swift & Co.
Decision Date | 08 November 1923 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 394. |
Citation | 210 Ala. 364,98 So. 16 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | ROOKS v. SWIFT & CO. |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1923.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; Woodson J. Martin, Judge.
Barbara Rooks sues Swift & Co. for damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from a collision between the automobile or truck of defendant and a buggy in which plaintiff, with two other persons, was riding. From a judgment for defendant, following affirmative instruction plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
E. O McCord & Son, of Gadsden, for appellant.
David S. Anderson and Dunn & Boyle, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
The suit was for personal injury sustained in collision with an automobile. The plaintiff had no direction or control over the driving of the vehicle in which she was a guest at the time of her injury. Birmingham Southern R. Co. v Harrison, 203 Ala. 284, 82 So. 534.
The record does not show a motion for a new trial, and the scintilla rule of evidence will be applied to the giving of the general affirmative charge. Penticost v. Massey, 202 Ala. 681, 81 So. 637.
In McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 40, 88 So. 135 rules governing the giving or refusing of such charge are adverted to, and will not be repeated. In determining the propriety of the general affirmative charge, the evidence offered by the party against whom it is requested must be accepted as true; and if there is evidence reasonably affording an inference adverse to the right of recovery by the party asking such general charge, it should not be given. In Jones v. Bell, 201 Ala. 336, 77 So. 998, is contained the declaration that if there is material contradiction between the direct and cross-examination of a witness, this would not warrant the court in disregarding his testimony, since its credibility was for the jury.
Recent authorities of this court dealing with the liability of the master for the negligent acts of the servant in driving the master's automobile or motor truck are Penticost v. Massey, 201 Ala. 261, 77 So. 675; Jones v. Strickland, 201 Ala. 138, 77 So. 562; Penticost v. Massey, 202 Ala. 681, 81 So. 637; Dowdell v. Beasley, 17 Ala. App. 100, 82 So. 40; Id., 203 Ala. 696, 82 So. 893; 205 Ala. 130, 87 So. 18; Ætna Explosives Co. v. Schaeffer, 209 Ala. 77, 95 So. 351; Ford v. Hankins, 209 Ala. 202, 96 So. 349; Bains Motor Co. v. Le Croy, 209 Ala. 345, 96 So. 483.
In Edwards v. Earnest, 208 Ala. 539, 94 So. 598, it was held:
"Where defendant's truck driver, sent a distance of four blocks to get some tires, got them, and then went out of his way to buy sugar and take it to his mother, and, while returning to his employer's place of business, injured plaintiff, held, that the question whether, at the time of the accident, he was within the scope of his employment, was for the jury." Headnote 1.
The court, in that case, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McLaurin v. McLaurin Furniture Co.
...775, 40 Ohio App. 49; Huddy on Automobiles (7 Ed.), sec. 753, page 819; Edwards v. Earnest, 206 Ala. 1, 89 So. 729; 94 So. 598; Rooks v. Swift, 98 So. 16; Deonie Ward Baking Company, 188 Ill.App. 588; Graham v. Henderson, 254 Pa. St. 137, 98 A. 870; Caver v. Eggerton, 157 Miss. 88, 127 So. ......
-
Meyn v. Dulaney-Miller Auto Co.
... ... 555] volved in an accident upon ... returning towards the master's business. Reynolds v ... Denholm, 213 Mass. 576, 100 N.E. 1006; Rooks v ... Swift & Co., 210 Ala. 364, 98 So. 16; Good v ... Berrie, 123 Me. 266, 122 A. 630; Bloodgood v ... Whitney, 235 N.Y. 110, 139 N.E ... ...
-
Tidmore v. Mills
...Lbr. Co., 186 Ala. 580, 64 So. 787; New Morgan County Bldg. & Loan Association v. Plemmons, 210 Ala. 286, 98 So. 12; Rooks v. Swift & Co., 210 Ala. 364, 98 So. 16; of Birmingham v. Coe, 31 Ala.App. 538, 20 So.2d 110. We have given careful study and due consideration to all the evidence in t......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boggs
...Okl. 121, 140 P. 1084; Simila v. N. W. Imp. Co., 73 Wash. 285, 131 P. 831; Blashfield on Automobile Law, p. 1636, § 42; Rooks v. Swift & Co., 210 Ala. 364, 98 So. 16; Keen v. Army Cycle Mfg. Co., 124 S. C. 342, 117 S. E. 531; Midgette v. Branning Mfg. Co., 150 N. C. 333, 64 S. E. 5; Osteen ......