Shafer v. Myers
Decision Date | 24 March 1927 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 790 |
Parties | SHAFER v. MYERS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 21, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.
Action by Katie Bell Myers, by her next friend, Charlie Myers against A.J. Shafer. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
C.P McIntyre, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Hill, Hill, Whiting, Thomas & Rives, of Montgomery, for appellee.
Plaintiff alleged to have been injured by an automobile on a public street of the city on February 15, 1926, and two months thereafter her suit for damages was called for trial. She was "brought into court upon a stretcher, accompanied" by trained nurses. Plaintiff announced ready, and counsel for the defendant moved a continuance on account of the physical condition of plaintiff. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant excepted. Thereupon the defendant answered in short by consent, by the general issue, and contributory negligence. The trial was had upon the simple negligence count and that charging the violation of the provisions of a city ordinance proximately causing her injuries.
Assignment of error not duly insisted upon will not be considered. Georgia Cotton Co. v. Lee, 196 Ala. 599, 72 So. 158. This will suffice for the motion for a continuance.
It is not controverted that, where a plea of contributory negligence is proven, it is a defense to a cause of action based on simple negligence. B.R.L. & P. Co. v. Bynum, 139 Ala. 389, 36 So. 736; M.L. & T. Co. v. Harris, 197 Ala. 236, 72 So. 545; Adler v. Martin, 179 Ala. 97, 59 So. 597.
The rule of submission to the jury of controverted fact, for its determination, has often been stated and applied. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 40, 88 So. 135; Standard Cooperage Co. v. Dearman, 204 Ala. 553, 86 So. 537; Jones v. Bell, 201 Ala. 336, 77 So. 998; Morrison v. Clark, 196 Ala. 670, 72 So. 305; Houston v. Elrod, 203 Ala. 41, 81 So. 831.
In Peters v. Southern Rwy. Co., 135 Ala. 533, 33 So. 332, it was declared that, when the facts admitted in a case "conclusively established any fact," mere denial by a witness of the existence of the fact so established does not create a material conflict in the evidence, and in such a case it is not error to give general affirmative instruction, if duly requested. L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Moran, 190 Ala. 108, 122, 66 So. 799; Cent. of Ga. Rwy. Co. v. Chambers, 194 Ala. 152, 159, 69 So. 518; L. & N.R. Co. v. Johnson, 201 Ala. 611, 79 So. 43; Hines v. Cooper, 205 Ala. 70, 88 So. 133.
It may be unnecessary to observe that the mere violation of a city ordinance does not have the effect or afford a cause of action, unless that violation is the proximate cause of, and contribution to, the injury as an immediate and efficient cause thereof, that is to say, the violation of the ordinance in connection with the other evidence must show that said violation of municipal ordinance was a part of the immediate cause and injury and as a proximate cause thereof, and not a remote cause thereof. Vaughn v. Dwight Mfg. Co., 206 Ala. 552, 556, 91 So. 77.
The court takes judicial knowledge of the progress and development of science generally (Luke v. Calhoun Co., 52 Ala. 115; Sanders v. State, 202 Ala. 37, 79 So. 375; Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198, 92 So. 171), and facts judicially known are not required to be pleaded and proved. Fit recourse may be had to evidence on such a subject, and is proper and often necessary to inform courts and juries of what the fact is that in law is a matter of common knowledge. In the instant case the immediate cause and effect of diabetes, with which the plaintiff was suffering at the trial, was illustrated by conflicting tendencies of medical authorities and testimony of experts. The jury were the triors of the fact, under all the evidence, and, aided by their common knowledge and experience, were required to honestly find the truth about said questions of controverted scientific fact. As such triors of fact, a verdict for the plaintiff was rendered, and based, no doubt, upon her injury at the time and the immediate result thereof on her general health. The lower court refused to disturb that verdict.
Under the rule, we cannot say from the evidence that the verdict is wrong and unjust and was the result of improper motive or conduct as heretofore often defined by this court. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 633, 9 So. 738; N.C. & St. L. Rwy. Co. v. Crosby, 194 Ala. 338, 351, 70 So. 7; Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co. v. White, 175 Ala. 60, 56 So. 574; Bachelder v. Morgan, 179 Ala. 339, 355, 60 So. 815, Ann.Cas.1915C, 888; Schloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. v. Jones, 207 Ala. 7, 91 So. 808.
We find nothing in the evidence which takes plaintiff's case out of the general rule of the time and place that the negligence is not imputed, as a matter of law, to pedestrians crossing a street in a city, at a regular crossing therefor. She was not required to stop, look, and listen. No duty is imposed upon pedestrians to keep a special lookout for automobiles or approaching vehicles, but only the general duty to exercise due care under the circumstances. Adler v. Martin, 179 Ala. 97, 115, 59 So. 597; Huey v. Dykes, 203 Ala. 231, 82 So. 481; Bachelder v. Morgan, 179 Ala 339, 352, 60 So. 815, Ann.Cas.1915C, 888; Barbour v. Shebor, 177 Ala. 304, 58 So. 276; Corona C. & I. Co. v. White, 158 Ala. 627, 48 So. 362, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 958; Ivy v. Marx, 205 Ala. 60, 87 So. 813, 14 A.L.R. 1173. And it is a well-established general rule that a driver of an automobile owes a duty to pedestrians to look and reasonably care for the rights of others upon the public highway, not only at street...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville
...So. 289; B'ham News Co. v. Andrews, 204 Ala. 649, 87 So. 168; Montgomery L. & P. Co. v. Thombs, 204 Ala. 678, 87 So. 205; Shafer v. Myers, 215 Ala. 678, 112 So. 230; Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. City Ice Delivery v. Lecari, 210 Ala. 629, 98 So. 901; Marbury Lbr. Co. v. Jones, 20......
-
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. James, 8 Div. 507.
... ... 437; Hines, Director General, etc., v ... Cooper, 205 Ala. 70, 88 So. 133; Brown v. Corona ... Coal Co., 208 Ala. 522, 94 So. 535; Shafer v ... Myers, 215 Ala. 678, 112 So. 230; Louisville & ... Nashville Railroad Company v. Moran, 190 Ala. 108, 122, ... 66 So. 799 ... ...
-
Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Proctor
...care for the rights of others upon the public highway, not only at street crossings, but between intersections thereof. Shafer v. Myers, 215 Ala. 678, 680, 112 So. 230. We are of opinion that this case is distinguishable from cases cited by defendant involving pedestrians injured by motor v......
-
J. C. Byram & Co. v. Livingston
... ... the rule of our cases. Ivy v. Marx, 205 Ala. 60, 87 ... So. 813, 14 A. L. R. 1173; Shafer v. Myers, 215 Ala ... 678, 112 So. 230; Ruffin Coal & Transfer Co. v ... Rich, 214 Ala. 633, 108 So. 596; Echols v ... Vinson, 220 Ala. 229, ... ...