Sims v. Birmingham Electric Co.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 144. |
| Citation | 189 So. 547,238 Ala. 83 |
| Parties | SIMS v. BIRMINGHAM ELECTRIC CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Edgar Bowron, Judge.
Action for damages for personal injuries by Juanita Sims against the Birmingham Electric Company. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Jim Gibson, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Lange Simpson, Brantley & Robinson and W. P. Rutledge, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
The automobile which plaintiff was driving on the streets of Birmingham collided with defendant's street car resulting in damages, for which she sues.
The cause was submitted to the jury on count A, a wanton count, and B, a count in simple negligence. There was verdict and judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
The accident occurred in the morning, and snow and ice were on the streets. Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that as she was driving the automobile between Eightieth and Eighty-first Streets at a moderate speed of ten or fifteen miles per hour, she approached a barbecue stand where two cars were parked, leaving insufficient room for passage without striking the out-bound track of defendant street railway; and the contact with this out-bound track caused the automobile to skid over and onto the in-bound track, where her car, apparently out of gasoline, stopped. She insists she took her foot from the accelerator, and made three efforts to start her car, but without avail. She saw the street car approaching seventy-five yards away, and her testimony is to the effect that, though she was in plain view, with the motorman looking ahead, and her automobile "dead" on the track, the motorman ran the street car at a rapid and undiminished speed until the moment of collision.
On the other hand, defendant's evidence was to the effect that the street car, though at first operated at full speed, slackened its speed when plaintiff's automobile was first seen some eighty feet ahead, and that the motorman did all within his power to stop his car and prevent the collision; that he did not sand the track, but stated he did not have time, and that plaintiff's car was not standing still but being operated at a considerable speed.
For the purpose in hand further details may be omitted, though it may be remarked that upon material points the evidence was in sharp conflict.
Under plaintiff's theory of the case the wanton count was for the jury's consideration. Bradley v. Johnson, 212 Ala. 330, 102 So. 710; Mobile Light & Railroad Co. v Gadik, 211...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyler v. Drennen
...the road back into a driveway. We think that the wantonness vel non of the defendant was a question for the jury. Sims v. Birmingham Electric Company, 238 Ala. 83, 189 So. 547. We also add that under tendencies of the evidence the question of wantonness vel non of the plaintiff under count ......
-
Moore v. Cooke
...court properly refused Charge 28, which ignores the wanton count. Buchanan v. Vaughn, 260 Ala. 482, 71 So.2d 56; Sims v. Birmingham Electric Co., 238 Ala. 83, 189 So. 547. Cf. Tyler v. Drennen, 255 Ala. 377, 51 So.2d As shown above, the trial court on motion for a new trial, because the ver......
-
Thompson v. White
...and is not guilty of negligence. Sington v. Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co., 200 Ala. 282, 284, 76 So. 48; Sims v. Birmingham Electric Co., 238 Ala. 83, 189 So. 547; Law v. Saks, 241 Ala. 37, 1 So.2d The defendant, White, described the collision as follows: 'A Well, I was travelling east ......
-
Law v. Saks
... ... Denied March 27, 1941 ... Lange, ... Simpson, Brantley & Robinson, of Birmingham, for ... appellant ... London ... & Yancey and William Yancey, all of Birmingham, for ... 282, 76 So. 48; ... McNeil v. Munson Steamship Lines, 184 Ala. 420, 63 So ... 992". Sims v. Birmingham Electric Co., 238 Ala ... 83, 189 So. 547, 548 ... The ... mental ... ...